If Trump were really a SPECTRE plant bent on destroying the US one imagines that he would be trying to ban firearms in the most reactionary fashion possible at this point. That would probably have half the US dissolving into a state of semi-civil war. Instead he's just doubling down in the most predictably reactionary fashion, and supercharging the Democratic base. Those kids who survived aren't going to go away...
This goes back to the question of whether Trump's election is the dying gasp of people terrified about the fact that the country no longer looks like the Ward and June Cleaver household, or a deeper problem. The kids from that school are speaking more truth to power about this issue than any adult. I don't really remember this kind of reaction to a shooting before. The visceral anger at the politicians in the pocket of the NRA. It won't change anything in the short-term. But those high school kids know about the NRA. They know who takes millions of dollars from them. Beyond that, they go to school everyday with people of color and immigrants. The major pockets of Trump support among the youth seem to be college-age white men. The ones still in school are looking at a party that continues to attack the LGBT community, seems openly hostile to immigrants, and is in the throes of a gun lobby to the point where they refuse to do ANYTHING when people like them are getting slaughtered in classrooms. If most of these kids are repulsed by Trump, and this is what they are growing up with, and is their formative political experience, then the Republican Party is going to lose most of them forever. Now they just need to vote the minute they are eligible. Which has always been a problem.
If Trump were really a SPECTRE plant bent on destroying the US one imagines that he would be trying to ban firearms in the most reactionary fashion possible at this point. That would probably have half the US dissolving into a state of semi-civil war. Instead he's just doubling down in the most predictably reactionary fashion, and supercharging the Democratic base. Those kids who survived aren't going to go away...
Now they just need to vote the minute they are eligible. Which has always been a problem.
Before they start making real money and start wondering where their tax money goes...
The last couple times there have been a few voices saying "look bro, thoughts and prayers and a moment of silence is not cutting it here." These kids have taken it a step further.
These students have already set an example for the next victims of the next mass shooting at a school. Let's not kid ourselves, nothings been done and it will happen again and it will probably happen soon. Let's hope the next people to speak up will be grown-ups.
The Republican NRA bought off politicians positions will be even less tenable next time. If the NRA would budge and come out against assault weapons then that would satisfy a lot of folks but they have never shown any interest in sensible regulations. They literally want no regulation at all. They want nothing to come in front of their profits not Republican politicians playing softball, hundreds of concert goers, or hundreds of children. They haven't budged before and this is the world they've given us. It seems like people are realizing that profits before people's lives and safety is a really raw deal.
A lot of people get jobs and start making money and paying taxes the moment they turn 18. It's a mistake to think that 18-year-olds are necessarily voting before they pay taxes.
I don't like the implication that teenagers aren't wise enough to vote, or that people shouldn't be voting if they're not paying income taxes. People who are in school, working in internships, or who cannot work due to disabilities still have a stake in politics and still have a right to fight for their interests.
With psychological studies showing that children are growing up slower and not appreciating the responsibilities of adulthood until a later age than previous generations, I don't think its crazy to want to raise the voting age.
Kids today are driving later, getting jobs later (not just ability to get a job, they aren't looking), dating a lot less, having sex less and later, and drinking less and later in life (though that seems healthier to me).
On the bright side, teen pregnancy is way down, which is an excellent side effect.
Kids today have been getting jobs later because many of them entered the work force at the exact moment the recession hit and unemployment skyrocketed, which then left them with long gaps in their resume that have been holding many of them back because employers do not like resume gaps. The job market in general has gotten far more competitive than it ever was in the past.
Kids drive less because they can't afford cars as easily as previous generations (millenials are the poorest generation in the United States today) and because they're more conscious about pollution. As for having sex, I don't see how that makes them less qualified to vote.
We're a democracy. The most basic right available to us as Americans is the right to vote. I do not think we should be cracking down on human rights just because there are some people we do not respect.
I would never dare to stop my fellow Americans from voting.
Kids today have been getting jobs later because many of them entered the work force at the exact moment the recession hit and unemployment skyrocketed, which then left them with long gaps in their resume that have been holding many of them back because employers do not like resume gaps. The job market in general has gotten far more competitive than it ever was in the past.
Kids drive less because they can't afford cars as easily as previous generations (millenials are the poorest generation in the United States today) and because they're more conscious about pollution. As for having sex, I don't see how that makes them less qualified to vote.
We're a democracy. The most basic right available to us as Americans is the right to vote. I do not think we should be cracking down on human rights just because there are some people we do not respect.
I would never dare to stop my fellow Americans from voting.
If you read the studies, they control for economic factors. It includes 24-year-olds who have cars available as well.
The biggest hindrance is how little young people are willing to move when compared to past generations. This includes questions like "are you willing to move so and so miles away from where you grew up for a job opportunity". It is especially odd since travel is much easier today, and you are even able to keep in touch with family and friends more easily due to technology.
Also, I disagree with your entire premise of voting as a simple human right. It is much more than that. As John Stuart Mill said, its not the mere exercise of a liberty, but the exercise of control over others.
This means that reasonable limitations on voting are acceptable If you want to say it is a basic human right, then why not allow 13-year-olds to vote? They have the right to hold property, they have the right to speech, they have the right to due process, they have the right to equal protection in almost all other areas beside voting. An Also, Zeus help us, in many states they have the right to have an abortion without even informing their parents.
An even bigger limitation is permanent residents. We don't allow them to vote, though large aspects of their lives are determined by the actions of our governments. Do you disagree with that as well?
The absolutist view of rights is completely inconsistent with how we treat everything, from free speech to gun rights. Yet people want to apply the absolutist view to voting. I'd rather not have my life determined by certain groups of people, and I think most would agree. Convicted serial killers shouldn't have a say in determining social policy.
I would also add that the most fundamental (specific) right is that of free thought and exchange of iformation (which includes the right to participate in speech- both speaking and listening). If information is overly-controlled, democracy can't function. Voting is worth much if you can't be informed about what you are voting on.
If you want to say it is a basic human right, then why not allow 13-year-olds to vote? They have the right to hold property, they have the right to speech, they have the right to due process, they have the right to equal protection in almost all other areas beside voting. An Also, Zeus help us, in many states they have the right to have an abortion without even informing their parents.
Put another way, in many states children cannot be forced to give birth.
If you want to say it is a basic human right, then why not allow 13-year-olds to vote? They have the right to hold property, they have the right to speech, they have the right to due process, they have the right to equal protection in almost all other areas beside voting. An Also, Zeus help us, in many states they have the right to have an abortion without even informing their parents.
Put another way, in many states children cannot be forced to give birth.
I don't want to get into a huge abortion debate, but the purpose was to show that if voting was indeed the most fundamental right that should not be regulated in any way, then logically the ability to exercise that right should be more readily available than other rights given to children.
In other words, it beyond me how the same people who cannot be trusted with a beer can be trusted with making important decisions for everyone.
There are also plenty of adults who can't be trusted with a beer, and yet they still have the right to vote.
The reason suffrage was extended to people of age 18 in the first place was because they could be drafted at 18, and people pointed out how immensely unjust it was that people could be forced into a war that they didn't even have a chance to have a say on.
We trust 18-year-olds to have jobs, get married, pay taxes, serve in the military, and live as adults in virtually every way, including raising their own children. The only thing denied to them is alcohol--which hardly strikes me as a human right to begin with. They have all the same humans rights we do. I do not like the idea of taking suffrage away from married homeowners with jobs and children.
You think that pushing the age of suffrage up to 21 would prevent irresponsible people from voting. The reality is that it would stop many, many more people from voting. Soldiers, taxpayers, parents, homeowners, husbands and wives, business owners... all of these people would be disenfranchised. Every single person from 18 to 20 who had a job would have no voice in their own government and yet still be compelled to pay taxes.
I do not think I need to point out the problem with taxation without representation.
It seems precious little different from forbidding women from voting on the grounds that they were not educated enough or forbidding non-property owners from voting on the grounds that they had no stake in politics or forbidding blacks from voting on the grounds that they couldn't be trusted. All you're doing is substituting one group for another. The argument is the same: These people aren't good enough according to my own personal criteria, so they shouldn't enjoy the same rights as I do.
Think back to every single time in American history that the government has declared a group of people to be no longer fit to possess a certain right. How many times have those decisions been right?
We already have plenty of attempts to stop people from voting in this country. I'm also not real sure this is the best time in history to be talking about the wisdom of adults, since we just put Donald Trump into office. I would rather have a 13 year old or 16 year old in his position as President, since Trump himself never seemed to mature past the age of 5.
Personally, I think it's also absurd that in some states, FORMER felons can't vote. How is this doing anything but encouraging the recidivism rate, when people who pay their debt to society are told they can no longer participate once they get back??
I also think it's VERY interesting that one of Russia's main goals in the last election was to keep minorities from voting. This is also the explicit goal of one of our political parties all across the country.
The existence of the draft was the impetus for lowering the voting age. Doesn't mean it was right. In my opinion the draft was an evil institution and a shameful practice for the US. It has (realistically) been done away with, so it is no longer even an issue when it comes to voting.
About taxes: permanent residents pay taxes. Foreign nationals doing business in America pay taxes. Both pay more than 20-year-olds on average. Neither get the right to vote. I don't see why paying taxes is the qualification, especially when you yourself said you don't like paying income tax to be a factor in voting rights.
Permanent residents have huge stakes in elections, yet they do not get to participate. That's because there is more to consider when it comes to granting people the privilege of voting than saying "its an absolute human right".
And that highlights the most obvious: why not thirteen-year-olds? Because we acknowledge that at some age people aren't developed enough as human beings to be trusted with the great responsibility of voting (I'm assuming you agree that 13yos shouldn't vote for purposes of this discussion).
It is therefore perfectly fair for reasonable people to disagree about where the cutoff should be placed, but unfair to dismiss any proposal for raising the age by simply saying "it is a human right". 17 year old people should have human rights as well, but they are not voting in general elections.
That's because any line is arbitrary and doesn't account for individual development. It's an approximation for the age where society agrees that the average person can be trusted with the big responsibility of voting. If the average ages of development change (as they have throughout human history) then it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the age cutoff for voting can change as well.
Very tough question. I would like to draw it upward, but not too much so. 20 years old seems like a solid age. That way people have at least had the chance to graduate high school at about the normal rate, and have at least a year or two of college or work experience.
Age is obviously a very blunt instrument for ensuring people are mature enough to vote, since individuals grow at different paces. Inevitably, some people who are very prepared for voting will be left out, and those who are under-prepared will be allowed to vote. People have also matured at different ages throughout history. In the early 1900s it was common for people to be working by 16.
However, the arbitrariness of age is kind of useful in a surprising way: it doesn't vet for other characteristics in ways that can be abused (like literacy tests before the Civil Rights Era being designed to exclude minorities). I am tempted to require a high school diploma, since I believe an educated electorate is vitally important. But when there are a large number of failing inner city schools in predominately minority areas, this would have horrible unintended consequences.
Very tough question. I would like to draw it upward, but not too much so. 20 years old seems like a solid age. That way people have at least had the chance to graduate high school at about the normal rate, and have at least a year or two of college or work experience.
Age is obviously a very blunt instrument for ensuring people are mature enough to vote, since individuals grow at different paces. Inevitably, some people who are very prepared for voting will be left out, and those who are under-prepared will be allowed to vote. People have also matured at different ages throughout history. In the early 1900s it was common for people to be working by 16.
However, the arbitrariness of age is kind of useful in a surprising way: it doesn't vet for other characteristics in ways that can be abused (like literacy tests before the Civil Rights Era being designed to exclude minorities). I am tempted to require a high school diploma, since I believe an educated electorate is vitally important. But when there are a large number of failing inner city schools in predominately minority areas, this would have horrible unintended consequences.
The high school diploma requirement is a de-facto literacy test. Nor do I think that or a college degree is even much of a barometer of actual intelligence at this point. Completing high school basically requires showing up in this country. Getting a college degree shows that you are particularly informed about a very narrow subject matter, and very little else. I would also argue that most people are working by, at the latest, the age of 16, at least at summer jobs.
Frankly, I continue to be a little shocked that so many people have such a problem with people VOTING. I have never, even after Trump, advocated the idea that people I couldn't disagree with more strongly don't have the right to show up and vote. Whether I think they are smart enough to do so is immaterial. That's not the way this works. And besides the obvious intent of voter ID laws to suppress minority votes, I also view them as a de-facto poll tax, AND it is common practice where these laws are implemented to then literally close or cut the hours at DMV offices in minority communities.
One of the problems I see with changing voting requirements is that people are going to try to rig them so that they primarily disqualify members of the opposing political party.
Making a high school education a requirement and you skew it in favor of the Democrats. Increasing the minimum age would work against the Democrats, lowering it would work against the Republicans, and adding an age maximum would work against the Republicans as well as resulting in political suicide for everyone who supported the move and dared to offend the AARP. If you demand voters produce IDs, then poor people (Democrats) will have trouble voting. If you return voting rights to ex-cons, that would favor the Democrats since so many ex-cons are minorities.
I'm not sure you could come up with a change to voting requirements that someone could not manipulate for partisan purposes.
I think ID laws and age requirements are both sensible on non-partisan grounds
However that would require that ID laws afford lower-income people with ample opportunities to obtain an ID at no cost. Unfortunately, they are often accompanied by gamesmanship.
I also agree with @semiticgod that most reform would be dead on arrival on account of partisan bickering.
However, I would also argue that a lot of the changes would only hurt each side in the short term. Politics is very much a game of appealing to certain voters. Parties would therefore adjust to the new rules of the game. For example, if high school diplomas were required Republicans would probably be less in favor of teaching creationism in certain states, and if the age requirement was moved up Democrats would be more prone to give detailed economic plans.
17 and under are still considered dependents of their parents; therefore, it is the parents responsibility to make sure that the policies governments implement benefit their children.
Once a person turns 18, they can be considered independent from their family and hence, have the right to help shape policies that effect them.
Maturity, education, past criminal activity, incarceration or anything else someone can think of should have no baring on an independent person's ability to exercise their right to vote in a true democracy.
So I'd bet a dollar or two the fraud that Mueller has on those two goes beyond just those two. There's no way these clowns kept it to themselves. I believe there's ample evidence that these guys are quick to jump on an opportunity to make some big bucks, no matter how shady the situation.
I'd speculate that Trump was tipped off about this and that's why he has been rage tweeting away impotently. Probably because he knows Jr. or Kushner was also involved in the fraud or he knows the more pressure that is put on Manaford he will soon fold and give up a bigger fish.
17 and under are still considered dependents of their parents; therefore, it is the parents responsibility to make sure that the policies governments implement benefit their children.
Once a person turns 18, they can be considered independent from their family and hence, have the right to help shape policies that effect them.
Maturity, education, past criminal activity, incarceration or anything else someone can think of should have no baring on an independent person's ability to exercise their right to vote in a true democracy.
Three Points in response to this (nice new profile pic btw): 1. We don't live in a "true democracy", but a republic with democratically elected representatives. I personally hope the United States never devolves into a true democracy. There is more than enough dangerous populism already. 2. People can legally be independent from their parents significantly below the age of 18. However, some laws have considered children dependent on their parents for certain purposes long after they turn 18 (most notably, the Affordable Care Act allows 26 yos to be on their parents insurance). 3. " Maturity, education, past criminal activity, incarceration or anything else someone can think of should have no baring on an independent person's ability to exercise their right to vote in a true democracy. " Except you clearly do agree that maturity should play a role since I take it you are not advocating for toddlers or 13yos voting. Also, how about the currently incarcerated? There are tons of things "someone can think of" that should definitely have bearing on someone's right to make decisions that effect all of society.
I think I can sum up the voting rights debate. Any group who is inclined to vote Democrat should be allowed to vote according to Democrats. Anybody who is inclined to vote Republican should be allowed to vote according to Republicans. If young people or illegal immigrants voted Republican then they would be the champions of their voting rights and the Dems would be loudly proclaiming the evils of allowing them to vote.
This whole 'democracy' thing is hilarious to me also. I seriously doubt that wandering nomads could stroll into ancient Athens, pitch a tent there and start voting. Just sayin'...
Currently incarcerated people and legally emancipated teens should be allowed to vote.
I disagree. I don't think a just society allows convicted serial killers to have the same say in important policy decisions as you or I.
Perhaps exceptions can be made for non-violent crimes, but even then if you can be deprived of basic liberty on account of your guilt you can be deprived of your right to make decisions that affect others. I think most would agree that the right to not live in a cage is superior to a right to vote.
That said, it would create an interesting incentive to correct our overcriminalization problem.
@Balrog99: I don't think that's a fair assessment of the situation. Aside from my quips about olds, what group are Democrats trying to stop from voting? And despite anything Fox News says, Democrats are not conspiring to allow undocumented immigrants to vote.
@Balrog99: I don't think that's a fair assessment of the situation. Aside from my quips about olds, what group are Democrats trying to stop from voting? And despite anything Fox News says, Democrats are not conspiring to allow undocumented immigrants to vote.
Like it or not, a path to citizenship is a path to voting rights.
Democrats don't have anything to gain from reducing the voting demographic at the moment, since none of the independently justifiable restrictions tip in their favor.
@Balrog99: I don't think that's a fair assessment of the situation. Aside from my quips about olds, what group are Democrats trying to stop from voting? And despite anything Fox News says, Democrats are not conspiring to allow undocumented immigrants to vote.
@booinyoureyes ninja'd my response so I'll just agree with him/her.
Comments
These students have already set an example for the next victims of the next mass shooting at a school. Let's not kid ourselves, nothings been done and it will happen again and it will probably happen soon. Let's hope the next people to speak up will be grown-ups.
The Republican NRA bought off politicians positions will be even less tenable next time. If the NRA would budge and come out against assault weapons then that would satisfy a lot of folks but they have never shown any interest in sensible regulations. They literally want no regulation at all. They want nothing to come in front of their profits not Republican politicians playing softball, hundreds of concert goers, or hundreds of children. They haven't budged before and this is the world they've given us. It seems like people are realizing that profits before people's lives and safety is a really raw deal.
This statement is hilarious considering the recent tax plan.
I don't like the implication that teenagers aren't wise enough to vote, or that people shouldn't be voting if they're not paying income taxes. People who are in school, working in internships, or who cannot work due to disabilities still have a stake in politics and still have a right to fight for their interests.
Kids today are driving later, getting jobs later (not just ability to get a job, they aren't looking), dating a lot less, having sex less and later, and drinking less and later in life (though that seems healthier to me).
On the bright side, teen pregnancy is way down, which is an excellent side effect.
For reference: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdev.12930/full
Kids drive less because they can't afford cars as easily as previous generations (millenials are the poorest generation in the United States today) and because they're more conscious about pollution. As for having sex, I don't see how that makes them less qualified to vote.
We're a democracy. The most basic right available to us as Americans is the right to vote. I do not think we should be cracking down on human rights just because there are some people we do not respect.
I would never dare to stop my fellow Americans from voting.
The biggest hindrance is how little young people are willing to move when compared to past generations. This includes questions like "are you willing to move so and so miles away from where you grew up for a job opportunity". It is especially odd since travel is much easier today, and you are even able to keep in touch with family and friends more easily due to technology.
Also, I disagree with your entire premise of voting as a simple human right. It is much more than that. As John Stuart Mill said, its not the mere exercise of a liberty, but the exercise of control over others.
This means that reasonable limitations on voting are acceptable If you want to say it is a basic human right, then why not allow 13-year-olds to vote? They have the right to hold property, they have the right to speech, they have the right to due process, they have the right to equal protection in almost all other areas beside voting. An Also, Zeus help us, in many states they have the right to have an abortion without even informing their parents.
An even bigger limitation is permanent residents. We don't allow them to vote, though large aspects of their lives are determined by the actions of our governments. Do you disagree with that as well?
The absolutist view of rights is completely inconsistent with how we treat everything, from free speech to gun rights. Yet people want to apply the absolutist view to voting. I'd rather not have my life determined by certain groups of people, and I think most would agree. Convicted serial killers shouldn't have a say in determining social policy.
In other words, it beyond me how the same people who cannot be trusted with a beer can be trusted with making important decisions for everyone.
The reason suffrage was extended to people of age 18 in the first place was because they could be drafted at 18, and people pointed out how immensely unjust it was that people could be forced into a war that they didn't even have a chance to have a say on.
We trust 18-year-olds to have jobs, get married, pay taxes, serve in the military, and live as adults in virtually every way, including raising their own children. The only thing denied to them is alcohol--which hardly strikes me as a human right to begin with. They have all the same humans rights we do. I do not like the idea of taking suffrage away from married homeowners with jobs and children.
You think that pushing the age of suffrage up to 21 would prevent irresponsible people from voting. The reality is that it would stop many, many more people from voting. Soldiers, taxpayers, parents, homeowners, husbands and wives, business owners... all of these people would be disenfranchised. Every single person from 18 to 20 who had a job would have no voice in their own government and yet still be compelled to pay taxes.
I do not think I need to point out the problem with taxation without representation.
It seems precious little different from forbidding women from voting on the grounds that they were not educated enough or forbidding non-property owners from voting on the grounds that they had no stake in politics or forbidding blacks from voting on the grounds that they couldn't be trusted. All you're doing is substituting one group for another. The argument is the same: These people aren't good enough according to my own personal criteria, so they shouldn't enjoy the same rights as I do.
Think back to every single time in American history that the government has declared a group of people to be no longer fit to possess a certain right. How many times have those decisions been right?
Personally, I think it's also absurd that in some states, FORMER felons can't vote. How is this doing anything but encouraging the recidivism rate, when people who pay their debt to society are told they can no longer participate once they get back??
I also think it's VERY interesting that one of Russia's main goals in the last election was to keep minorities from voting. This is also the explicit goal of one of our political parties all across the country.
About taxes: permanent residents pay taxes. Foreign nationals doing business in America pay taxes. Both pay more than 20-year-olds on average. Neither get the right to vote. I don't see why paying taxes is the qualification, especially when you yourself said you don't like paying income tax to be a factor in voting rights.
Permanent residents have huge stakes in elections, yet they do not get to participate. That's because there is more to consider when it comes to granting people the privilege of voting than saying "its an absolute human right".
And that highlights the most obvious: why not thirteen-year-olds? Because we acknowledge that at some age people aren't developed enough as human beings to be trusted with the great responsibility of voting (I'm assuming you agree that 13yos shouldn't vote for purposes of this discussion).
It is therefore perfectly fair for reasonable people to disagree about where the cutoff should be placed, but unfair to dismiss any proposal for raising the age by simply saying "it is a human right". 17 year old people should have human rights as well, but they are not voting in general elections.
That's because any line is arbitrary and doesn't account for individual development. It's an approximation for the age where society agrees that the average person can be trusted with the big responsibility of voting. If the average ages of development change (as they have throughout human history) then it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the age cutoff for voting can change as well.
Age is obviously a very blunt instrument for ensuring people are mature enough to vote, since individuals grow at different paces. Inevitably, some people who are very prepared for voting will be left out, and those who are under-prepared will be allowed to vote. People have also matured at different ages throughout history. In the early 1900s it was common for people to be working by 16.
However, the arbitrariness of age is kind of useful in a surprising way: it doesn't vet for other characteristics in ways that can be abused (like literacy tests before the Civil Rights Era being designed to exclude minorities). I am tempted to require a high school diploma, since I believe an educated electorate is vitally important. But when there are a large number of failing inner city schools in predominately minority areas, this would have horrible unintended consequences.
Frankly, I continue to be a little shocked that so many people have such a problem with people VOTING. I have never, even after Trump, advocated the idea that people I couldn't disagree with more strongly don't have the right to show up and vote. Whether I think they are smart enough to do so is immaterial. That's not the way this works. And besides the obvious intent of voter ID laws to suppress minority votes, I also view them as a de-facto poll tax, AND it is common practice where these laws are implemented to then literally close or cut the hours at DMV offices in minority communities.
Making a high school education a requirement and you skew it in favor of the Democrats. Increasing the minimum age would work against the Democrats, lowering it would work against the Republicans, and adding an age maximum would work against the Republicans as well as resulting in political suicide for everyone who supported the move and dared to offend the AARP. If you demand voters produce IDs, then poor people (Democrats) will have trouble voting. If you return voting rights to ex-cons, that would favor the Democrats since so many ex-cons are minorities.
I'm not sure you could come up with a change to voting requirements that someone could not manipulate for partisan purposes.
However that would require that ID laws afford lower-income people with ample opportunities to obtain an ID at no cost. Unfortunately, they are often accompanied by gamesmanship.
I also agree with @semiticgod that most reform would be dead on arrival on account of partisan bickering.
However, I would also argue that a lot of the changes would only hurt each side in the short term. Politics is very much a game of appealing to certain voters. Parties would therefore adjust to the new rules of the game. For example, if high school diplomas were required Republicans would probably be less in favor of teaching creationism in certain states, and if the age requirement was moved up Democrats would be more prone to give detailed economic plans.
Once a person turns 18, they can be considered independent from their family and hence, have the right to help shape policies that effect them.
Maturity, education, past criminal activity, incarceration or anything else someone can think of should have no baring on an independent person's ability to exercise their right to vote in a true democracy.
His former aide Rick Gates is going to plead guilty to fraud related charges and testify against Trump's Former Campaign Manager Paul Manaford.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/18/politics/gates-manafort-plea-deal/index.html
So I'd bet a dollar or two the fraud that Mueller has on those two goes beyond just those two. There's no way these clowns kept it to themselves. I believe there's ample evidence that these guys are quick to jump on an opportunity to make some big bucks, no matter how shady the situation.
I'd speculate that Trump was tipped off about this and that's why he has been rage tweeting away impotently. Probably because he knows Jr. or Kushner was also involved in the fraud or he knows the more pressure that is put on Manaford he will soon fold and give up a bigger fish.
1. We don't live in a "true democracy", but a republic with democratically elected representatives. I personally hope the United States never devolves into a true democracy. There is more than enough dangerous populism already.
2. People can legally be independent from their parents significantly below the age of 18. However, some laws have considered children dependent on their parents for certain purposes long after they turn 18 (most notably, the Affordable Care Act allows 26 yos to be on their parents insurance).
3. "
Maturity, education, past criminal activity, incarceration or anything else someone can think of should have no baring on an independent person's ability to exercise their right to vote in a true democracy. "
Except you clearly do agree that maturity should play a role since I take it you are not advocating for toddlers or 13yos voting. Also, how about the currently incarcerated? There are tons of things "someone can think of" that should definitely have bearing on someone's right to make decisions that effect all of society.
Perhaps exceptions can be made for non-violent crimes, but even then if you can be deprived of basic liberty on account of your guilt you can be deprived of your right to make decisions that affect others. I think most would agree that the right to not live in a cage is superior to a right to vote.
That said, it would create an interesting incentive to correct our overcriminalization problem.
Democrats don't have anything to gain from reducing the voting demographic at the moment, since none of the independently justifiable restrictions tip in their favor.