Ban the over 50's from Voting

reply to post by dawnstar


The only thing I can be sure of, is that the current political system doesn't work.

At least one of the problem (you mention others) at the moment is that there is no direct feedback from the voters (apart from the bashing they may or may not get form the press and they sometimes have their own agenda anyway and not those of the people). When an unpopular decision is made at the moment a good politician can spin it, forcing people in debats and speculation. They'd find it difficult to argue with cold hard NO form the people. The people have spoken.

It stands to reason that you are never going to get everyone to agree on everything but surely its the majority of people that they should be aiming for.

reply to post by region331


to me, if a candidate wants to get my vote, well, they shouldn't lie....the last pres. election, all the candidates lost my vote before the first primaries. we have both sides proclaiming so many lies and half truths, well, the truth is effectively being buried....so, well, how can the people make good informed decisions when all the data that they are being given is bogus?? social security is not broke...that's the fact, it ain't gonna go broke. social security has a lot of money due it from our gov't .......which is broke, would have been broke a heck of alot sooner if it wasn't drawing all that money in to plunder. so, well, social security isn't drawing in enough money, and needs to collect some of that money from our gov't.....and is no longer worthy of plunder, so by all means, it's time to end it....
and, they will just find another avenue to come up with all the money that they can dream up to spend.
so, it's time to demonize those who nearing retirement, notice, it's not those who are retired, na, that would just be so not acceptable....so, ya, let's just pick this other group here, just like, it's just so not acceptable to demonie the poor, so let's go after the unemployed, and well, anyone who gripes about not being able to find a way to make ends meet.....
and that is all that this thread is....find someone to scapegoat......sacrifice for the status quo....
more lies are made up, and tossed around....and the truth gets further away from us...

oh, and are you sure that the current system doesn't work?? or is it more like our fine elected officials are acting so badly, because well, they want us to think it's not working and be willing to change it to something that is more to their chosing?

reply to post by dawnstar


I'm sure the current system doesnt work. At the moment we have the career politicians and the only balance to them are the press. The people at the moment are merely a disenfranchised viewer.

I think that the 'career' of been a politician is more about looking after your own career and less about acting as a custodian or managing the system best for the people. Not the lobbyists or pandering to the press. It should be pandring to the people. At the moment the majority of the population have to take their cues from the press. If the people were forced, or engaged to be a continual participant in the decisions then they might have to think for themselves.

You sound like you are frustrated with what you're able to do about it. But currently what can you do?

reply to post by dawnstar


Also, currently you have a 2 party system because people are scared of wasting their votes. At best tactical voting comes into play but the real result is that nothing ever changes. The majority of people that can actually be bothered to vote choose from one of the 2 parties.

In a continuous voting system parties not in power could gain a following which over time may grow purely from the fact that people can see that their vote wouldn't be wasted, come election time.

reply to post by region331


maybe.....but then, well, the internet seems to be easily hacked, so isn't our voting system I believe....I've been dropping hits for years now, we just start spreading the word, just pick the names out of hat, mickey mouse, whoever, and well, spread the word around, and well, if we can convince enough people to vote for some obscure or cartoon character, well, ya we would be throwing away a vote, but would be sending on heck of a message their way.....we don't find any of yas suitable....

we'd rather have mickey mouse, or heck goofy would even be better!!

reply to post by dawnstar


You might be right the internet might eventually achieve your goal but I fear the bigger the internet gets, the more fragmented 'the message' may become. I'm happy to be wrong though.

My underlying feeling is that we shouldn't have to rely on the internet, or any external machine, in order to take up the slack we have now to recorrect for imbalances within the democratic system.

The only checks now are if the press really get their teeth into something, other than that you're stuck with a politician whose main priority is to stay in power. Now at the moment that might be done by pleasing lobbyists, businesse, journalists, or any of a number of people within that murky, backroom world of power, rather than the majority they are supposed to be representing the interests of. The other way that our voice can be heard is by protesting. Again, unless it's reported then there's no chance of any real results because the politician has the opportunity to spin the argument it's only a minority that are protesting after all. Students have the time to participate but ordinary people are far too busy getting on with their real lives to take part in anything like that.

The voters contribution over a lifetime to put maybe 10 crosses in a box is, quite frankly, insulting. It's from a different time. What's needed is a shift in the system to bring the voter/people back into the political triangle where our voice, pleasure or displeasure can be heard.

I'm not a mission to sell this but it seems that we are just going to go on voting defective personalities into power unless something big changes and the power to instantly adjust your standing vote would be a powerful tool. The way the machine is, is never going to get torn down so we are stuck with it but a small shift using technology might refresh the system.

Originally posted by wtbengineer
reply to post by hadriana

 

You're talking about my parent's generation not mine. I'm 52 and have busted my butt my whole life and all I have is debt, debt, debt. .

Yes, I am. That's why I said senior citizens- those over 65.

reply to post by hadriana

Thanks for clearing that up, the confusion was in the fact that you didn't exactly mention any specific age. I just thought you were some youngster calling the over 50 crowd 'senior citizens' since the over 50 people is specifically what this thread is about.

Oh Milt... Here we go old buddy...

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by SmArTbEaTz

 

Last I checked this was about the elderly not me.

Check again!

The opening post was by a disgruntled Scotsman. He has since indicated disappointment in HIS decision to move to the US. Instead of moving back to Scotland, he wants to blame "old farts" in the United States for his misery. Though I feel he is only "pissed" over the "weed" laws in the US, he proposed the following:

"anyone over 50 just needs to step back and let the people who have a firm grasp of technology and how the world works do the thinking and voting."

- and where does it say ANYTHING about "weed" laws? Your generation set the market for Pharmaceuticals which are nothing more then snake oil salesmen. Now you guys want to bitch and complain about how bad you get treated when your the ones who let get this far. You can't blame that on us. You guys were here first and could of stopped this a long time ago. Now you sit around all day on forums bitching... What I have to look forward too... Geez...

I didn't see the word "elderly" mentioned anywhere in his post. I did however see references to "The over 50's", "grumpy old farts", and the "out of touch". As his post specifically mentions two of my favorite peer groups, it entitles me to demonstrate that I may not be as "out of touch" as idiots like yourself, and the OP, may believe (I originally used the word "think", but it doesn't seem to apply to you two.).

BTW old timer it's too not two

and 50 is elderly...

He may of used different terms but I was attempting to be respectful, but calling me an idiot is only your opinion and not fact so I just

at you. You might want to fix your glasses TOO because the heading was Ban the over 50's (old farts/elderly) not here is why I blame you old farts and want to move back...

You are a member of the "out of touch" group, so yes, the opening post is about you too. I certainly don't feel you "have a firm grasp of technology and how the world works". Your lack of writing skills, and lack of focus, demonstrate my point very well.

Lack of writing skills? Lack of focus? Please explain old timer...

I know I have a grasp of how things work in the big world and on the streets. You old man are the one who is out of touch, not me. I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else, even though it is judgement day... or was that this weekend. I forget. Must be my Alzheimer... or pot smoke

.

Either way it has no bearing in my beliefs and opinions.

Then, why the hell did you even express an opinion? After all, it was you that decided "It really doesn't matter". Don't try to lay that in my lap!

Um... because it doesn't have any bearing on my beliefs or opinions... Last I checked I was a human being that has the right to make comments and statements as I wish. Didn't they teach that to you in school? If you can remember that long ago... and I wasn't the one who decided it didn't matter... you can blame that one on the government. Most "smart" people ( I use that term loosely because it doesn't seem to include you) know the only reason we have a Democratic and Republican party is so the people will be fooled into believing they have a choice. Only the blind follow foolishly.

And maybe your 6th grader knows how to have kids, but that doesn't mean they know how to raise them!

Very good! I am VERY impressed! That is exactly the point I was trying to make when I stated:
"Maybe it would be a better idea to save "Sex Ed" for those getting ready to graduate from high school."

That just shows how much of an idiotic statement that was... Oh yeah just wait and teach them about it after the fact... "Now Suzy I know you have 3 kids in the 10th grade and it's a bit late, but we want you to take Sex Education class."

VERY smart of you... Another reason why you shouldn't vote. Just making the OP sound more realistic... Amazing how he got sooooo many stars too. Notice how I used too and not two there big guy?

and why can't a 16 yr old see?

Are you for real? Quite often it's the same damn reasons a 50 year old might not be able to see! Do some damn research for a change!

I spend a good deal of time researching my beliefs so your comment isn't warranted... as usual... Statically most 16 yr olds CAN see... Where do you come up with these thoughts

Are you retarded?

Perhaps... What do you think? (As if I really give a damn!) Please use valid references though.

Can you say Stu-Pi-D-Ty without crappin in your Depends? Too bad there isn't a cure for that yet. Maybe you should vote for one though?

You my friend are the sheeple. Not me.

Hey..., I can be that mature (?) too...

reply to post by angus1745


I think you're partly right. We should leave the voting to people that are never grumpy.

Originally posted by argentus
reply to post by angus1745

 

I think you're partly right. We should leave the voting to people that are never grumpy.

Irony is a wonderful tool. Thank you for the chuckle..

However, you've hit on an important point. It's a fact that many voters will choose against a candidate rather that for one.

I wonder how many people between 18 and 50 actually vote. Any idea?

reply to post by masqua


I didn't have any idea. The U.S. Census Bureau reports the following numbers (in thousands) for 2008 voting.

18 to 24 years . . . . . . . . . . . 28,263 25,791 15,082 58.5 57.6–59.4 12,515 48.5 47.6–49.4 83.0 82.1–83.8
25 to 34 years . . . . . . . . . . . 40,240 34,218 22,736 66.4 65.7–67.1 19,501 57.0 56.2–57.8 85.8 85.1–86.4
35 to 44 years . . . . . . . . . . . 41,460 36,397 25,449 69.9 69.2–70.6 22,865 62.8 62.1–63.5 89.8 89.3–90.4
45 to 54 years . . . . . . . . . . . 44,181 41,085 30,210 73.5 72.9–74.1 27,673 67.4 66.7–68.1 91.6 91.0–92.2
55 to 64 years . . . . . . . . . . . 33,896 32,288 24,734 76.6 75.9–77.3 23,071 71.5 70.8–72.2 93.3 92.7–93.8
65 to 74 years . . . . . . . . . . . 20,227 19,571 15,290 78.1 77.3–78.9 14,176 72.4 71.5–73.3 92.7 92.0–93.5
75 and older . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,231 16,724 12,810 76.6 75.7–77.5 11,344 67.8 66.8–68.8 88.6 87.6–89.6

U.S. Census Bureau report

........which doesn't delineate the years in terms of this thread in a way that tips the scale vigorously in one way or the other on a pivot point of 50 years old. One could extropolate the "45-54" and perhaps lean the balance one way or the other, if one accepted the data as accurate. Nobody lies on a census, right?

I think anyone over 50 just needs to step back and let the people who have a firm grasp of technology and how the world works do the thinking and voting.

a reply to: angus1745


The children of Satan have arrived?

No taxation without representation. So, I take it that you have no problem with people enjoying a tax free life after they hit 50? No more sales tax, no more property tax, state and federal income taxes, and hey, our cigs would probably be cheap as all heck!!

a reply to: dawnstar

Sorry, didnt realize how old this thread was.. or that I had participated in it then. I probably dont have anything to say that I didnt already say.

a reply to: angus1745

Amazing... and it is the likes of you whom call people in the right "nazis"... The nazis would be proud of threads like this one. They also though old people weren't worth it... But I am sure you won't stop just with the "let's ban people over 50 from voting..." There are literally millions of people under 50, and even millenials whom vote conservative/Republican... You also want to push for anyone else under 50 whom don't vote YOUR WAY to be banned from voting, to be banned from having rights, etc, etc... How about you come out of the freaking closet, and proclaim to the whole world what you really are? a NAZI who wants to deny people their rights, including voting rights because we dare disagree with you...

a reply to: angus1745

Thing is old people vote, younglings no so much.

Probably easier to just set a maximum age for POTUS so the canny be senile.

Plus let's face it, not many people over the age of 65 that are in touch with the greater part of the people.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: dawnstar
Sorry, didnt realize how old this thread was.. or that I had participated in it then. I probably dont have anything to say that I didnt already say.

I started reading before I too realised what an old thread it was.... saw your first

post and thought "You've been here a looong time.

However seeing you did not realise that you had already participated in it I think

you've just had a *senior moment* maybe it is time for you to stop voting

50 seems extreme but I think that people over 70 shouldn't be allowed to vote. Many of them already have some kind of dementia, beginings of alzheimer and also pov of a world that is no more and never will be. On top of it I don't think it's fair for them to decide on things such as brexit or gay marriage when they will most likely die in 10 years or less.

Frankly tho I'd rather see such ban on politicians. Old farts creating the law and manipulating the public do a lot more damage.
Either that or just make regular and mandatory psychiatric exams for both.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: angus1745

Thing is old people vote, younglings no so much.
Probably easier to just set a maximum age for POTUS so the canny be senile.
Plus let's face it, not many people over the age of 65 that are in touch with the greater part of the people.

Lol!!! How many people in government are over 50yrs.? And in the UK how many

people In the House of Lords is under 80 yrs.

If the over 50yrs are not to be allowed to vote through (what was inferred senility)

surely they should NOT be allowed to govern over 50 yrs.