Hmm... While it is a good point, I disagree, because everyone should have a say. It's as simple as that. And the wisdom of older voters helps to balance out the naivety of younger voters.
I'm no where near 65 but it doesn't matter who's future it is - with age comes experience and, hopefully, wisdom. The younger generations do not know anything about the future yet and need at least some guidance from those who do. Following this ignorant theory parents shouldn't have any say in how their children are raised because it's not their future!
Yes the younger generations should have a say and should be active in the political process, but not the only say. For you younglings who may disagree with me, try to use a little logic; why should you have to repeat the mistakes of your forebears, and the next generation repeat your mistakes, and so on. Wouldn't it just make more sense to take advantage of the experiences of someone who's already been there and done that? And before you get too far ahead of me here, yes they made the mistakes but they have probably learned from them.
If we followed the thinking that I know many of you are engaging in right now (that they made the mistakes and need to get out of the way so someone younger can fix them) then Edison would never have invented electric lighting; someone younger would have pushed him out of the way and started over. Maybe they would have succeeded sooner, probably not.
So yes, get involved and engaged in the future, but do not make the fatal mistake of thinking you already know everything you need to know. Work with, and learn from your elders. At least you will have more ideas and more options from which to choose! And above all, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE educate yourselves on issues from somewhere besides your Twitter feeds!
Yes @chakun "probably". Hopefully. But as I said, they shouldn't have the only say either. If everyone works together instead of all thinking they know best, we would probably be decades ahead of where we are now. As the old saying goes: two heads are better than one.
Also I probably should be clear I'm only talking about "John and Jenny Q Public" here; the everyday voters, not the crooked career politicians who have a financial interest in maintaining the status quo. None of us should listen to those criminal SOBs anymore!
While I think you have a good point guestwho, I would like to tell you about my country's election. This year was the Peruvian elections and for the first time in forever the better choice won. 4 new generations got to vote and they all voted for PPK, an economist who is 77y/o and have had a lot of experience in life. While the oldest generation of people who voted voted for Keiko Fujimori, the daughter of the ex president who is now in jail for violation of the humans rights. The excuse of this people for voting was because they knew her father and he did "good", because he defeated Shinning Path (a terrorist group) but they forgot all the awful things he did too. The new generation of voter voted for a brighter future, for not making the same mistakes we have been making for the last 100 years. So to get to my point, maybe sometimes the older are not the wiser, at lest not in my country where education is lacking and we stick to what we know, not what is new. Because new is scary.
Oh absolutely age and experience don't necessarily equate to wisdom. And too, change is too difficult for many people. That's why the same SOBs keep getting reelected here too. Many of our worst politicians have been in office for 30, 40, 50 years just because the people get used to voting a certain way and don't pay attention to what's going on.
Change is good, but should be tempered with reason.
Clarification: this is speculation. I have no tangible evidence of this beyond a document from the fifties saying how the government wanted to disarm the citizenry and use the U.N. to enforce it.
Well one only needs look at her record, or the record of pretty much every Democrat. She has repeatedly spoken of her disdain for the second amendment and has backed every proposed gun ban for the last thirty years. The party as a whole has been far too cozy with the UN, and with the whole concept of global government. I don't know if she would be the one to turn us over completely to UN governance, but she would certainly continue Obama's work at building that particular road.
I'm no Trump fan, but given our choices this time around...
"Ya, so you know that part of our population that has the most wisdom, learned from the most mistakes, and is best equiped to lead our younger generation.........yah, lets ignore them all together because my bedroom wall full of participation trophies proves that im capable of making the really dificult decisions!"
I agree with him in this case because, if I'm right, he's talking about the EU referendum and a lot of older people are saying out and if we do leave the EU, all the negative effects are going to fall onto the younger generation
So do you believe the older population is intentionally sabotaging the country for the younger, or that they dont understand what it takes to run a country and are wrong in wanting to leave the EU?
No no no... allowing groups to vote protects their welfare. If criminals weren't allowed to vote, capital punishment could be passed without their resistance. Older people must be allowed to vote so that they have a say in terms of palliative care, pensions etc. The fact is, younger people simply don't think about people over 65 all that much.
Until recently that was blanket. You commit a felony (of a certain severity) you lose your right to vote or own a firearm. Obama and other Democrats have done their level best to change this because, according to them, most prison inmates are minorities (falsely accused, of course) so taking away their right to vote, even WHILE THEY ARE SERVING THEIR SENTENCES, is racism. Of course the fact they figure most of the cons and illegal aliens will vote Democrat has nothing to do with it. Funny the Democrats don't seem concerned about felons losing the right to own firearms!
First guest here. Sorry, I don't live in the US. I was thinking of Canada/thinking generally when I mentioned criminals. (Interestingly, in Canada even those in mental institutions can vote.)
Also, with criminals, I don't think it's so much a matter of protecting minorities, except in the sense that felons are a minority. It's a matter of protecting a group that is unlikely to be protected by most people – who have never been sentenced or know people who have. If one party is interested in the welfare of prisoners, then prisoners should be able to vote for that party as opposed to a party that will institute harsher sentences or reduce spending on prisons. The rest of the population generally doesn't give much thought to prisoners, and is often comfortable with brushing them off as undeserving instead of really considering these issues.
Equality means equality, in my opinion. A conviction doesn't mean you're not human.
Firstly, I don't know what European shit-hole you live in but around here people live significantly longer than that, so it is their future.
Secondly, unless they die immediately after voting it's their *present*. What does the future have to do with it?
Most European countries are comparable with the US in terms of standard of living, if not better. The only shithole here is Russia which is like the Texas of Europe.
I wasn't implying that all of Europe is a shit-hole, I was implying that the country he lives in is a shit-hole based on it's apparent low average lifespan, and I inferred that it was somewhere in Europe because of the European Union flag.
Saying "go fuck yourself" for defending Europe? Are you okay in the head?
Also, I know that there's cool stuff in Texas but I was basing that argument on the stereotypes so it's easier to understand, not on "well actually there's this one city which is kinda sophisticated so don't diss us".
What a stupid statement. Over 65 doesn't mean dead, it means you have experience and wisdom behind you. I dare you actually sit and talk with a senior for an hour. I'll give you $100 if you don't learn something from them. That is of course, if you even actually have a brain that works which I doubt.
Whilst I agree, I also believe that elders will have more experience with government knowledge, so they'll probably be more aware of what is best for the future of the country
Considering it's the elders who are the majority of racists homophobes and sexists, I think they shouldn't have such a strong grip on politics as they currently do
Yes the younger generations should have a say and should be active in the political process, but not the only say. For you younglings who may disagree with me, try to use a little logic; why should you have to repeat the mistakes of your forebears, and the next generation repeat your mistakes, and so on. Wouldn't it just make more sense to take advantage of the experiences of someone who's already been there and done that? And before you get too far ahead of me here, yes they made the mistakes but they have probably learned from them.
So yes, get involved and engaged in the future, but do not make the fatal mistake of thinking you already know everything you need to know. Work with, and learn from your elders. At least you will have more ideas and more options from which to choose! And above all, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE educate yourselves on issues from somewhere besides your Twitter feeds!
Change is good, but should be tempered with reason.
I'm no Trump fan, but given our choices this time around...
Also, with criminals, I don't think it's so much a matter of protecting minorities, except in the sense that felons are a minority. It's a matter of protecting a group that is unlikely to be protected by most people – who have never been sentenced or know people who have. If one party is interested in the welfare of prisoners, then prisoners should be able to vote for that party as opposed to a party that will institute harsher sentences or reduce spending on prisons. The rest of the population generally doesn't give much thought to prisoners, and is often comfortable with brushing them off as undeserving instead of really considering these issues.
Equality means equality, in my opinion. A conviction doesn't mean you're not human.
Secondly, unless they die immediately after voting it's their *present*. What does the future have to do with it?
Also, I know that there's cool stuff in Texas but I was basing that argument on the stereotypes so it's easier to understand, not on "well actually there's this one city which is kinda sophisticated so don't diss us".
Why would you want to perpetuate stereotypes?