by Jack
California is out to prove it is the most progressive or regressive state in the union, depending on your political perspective. Sacramento wants to give 17 year old’s the vote. So, once again we are divided into two camps, i.e., lunatics on the left and outnumbered conservatives on the right.
Liberals pitch the dire need for this Constitutional change thusly, “Young people across the country are mobilizing, marching, and speaking out on critical issues as never before, from the Youth Climate Strike and March for Our Lives to immigrant rights and Black Lives Matter. They are looking out at a world they’re set to inherit, and making a powerful case for action to create a safer, more equitable future. Now, it’s time to let more young people use the power of their vote — not just their voices — to effect change by expanding voting rights to include young people aged 16 and 17. California could be a leader in making this happen.”
And why not give the vote to 15 and 14 aged children too, there are issues that will impact them? Look, just because a kid can march down the street with a bunch of protesters doesn’t make him mature and informed. There are a lot of issues that will impact kids, but that’s why they have parents and why we have adult voters. That’s why the above rational for them voting is just bull puckey,
The hypocrisy here is breathtaking. A short time ago (2016) the democrats had their hair on fire over 18 year old’s buy cigarettes. So they raised the legal age to 21. Why? Because at 18 they were not mature enough to make a rational decision about their health, they stated need to save them from themselves! But fast forward to 2019 and it perfect ok for a 17 year to vote on legislation that could affect my health, my income, my life? This a sham, a fraud, a total power-play and there is nothing altruistic about it. The hidden agenda here kids are easy to sway emotionally. They lack life experience and background to fully appreciate what they are voting on. This plays perfectly into the liberal-mindset, because their vote they will insure the democrat’s domination over CA’s billions and that is the bottom line.
Democrats have been using the old dodge, “if they’re old enough to serve in the military they ought to be old enough to vote.” So, what about the drinking age they voted in, dems said young adults can’t drink until age 21.
There is no nexus for a 17 year old serving in the military and casting a responsible vote! In the military that 17 year old is told what to do, how to do it and when to do it…which is really what democrats would like to do to them. He/she is not put in charge of the invasion plans. No- that would be beyond stupid! 17 year old’s are closely supervised and they have zero say about anything, until they have some solid time in grade (experience). Because they are too freaking immature and they know nothing! The average 17 year old doesn’t know squat about the military and they need to be taught the basics, so they can survive and so we can survive…get it? And yet the democrats are willing to throw our time tested electoral rules right out the window just for their own political advantage?
I’m tired of listening to liberals lie to put one over on the public. When they can show how the cities and states they control are not going broke and circling the drain, maybe I’ll listen. But, right now whatever these people control is a total freaking disaster. CA is a prime example of colossal waste, fraud and abuse until the total oversight of democrats!
We’re taxed to death in this state and were are getting next to nothing for it – wake up!
I Absolutely agree! There is just nothing intelligent one could say about giving 17 year old’s the right to vote! My God, The Democrats have become so FAR FAR LEFT that we are dealing with a bunch of Marxists! This is very dangerous for our country!!!
And the hits just keep on comin’…
“Newsom and top California lawmakers strike a deal to cap rent increases”
(Language alert. Blog author is not shy about expressing his opinion.)
https://bustednuckles.com/2019/08/30/california-takes-another-giant-leap-towards-complete-socialism/
Thanks RHT, the dems have been on this rent control campaign for a long time and now because of the sudden fall in wealth and upsurge in minority demographics…they’re going to get it.
Be it rent control or gun control, bans on plastic bags, more taxes to feed the fat socialist hog, it’s really comes down to just one thing…. control. Power equals money, money equals power and those who couldn’t earn it fairly got by being corrupt career politicians and socialist bureaucrats.
The liberal control freaks want big government in our living rooms, bed rooms, dining rooms, everywhere we turn. They want to control how we think and they are constantly promoting their agenda thru revisionist history! The lefties attack our values and spread their cancer thru text books, Marist college professors, heavy handed rules, regulations, laws, taxes and it all constrains freedom and undermines the foundation of the country and the principles we fought to defend.
Nobody was ever conquered overnight by socialism, this is a slow, methodical, process of turning up the heat until we are cooked and in CA our goose is cooked!
Jack, The Democrat party has become a theist cult. All power and control belongs to them and anyone who defies them is condemned, attacked into submission or their lives and livelihood is destroyed.
Peggy, spot on my friend. It’s very scary when we look at the true agenda, not to mention the legislation they try to pass.
Jack, What they did to Kavanaugh should have resulted in criminal charges. Hopefully, what they’re doing to Trump will.
The Comey-Brennan Conspiracy to Violate Trump’s Civil Rights:
“It could get them an additional five years.”
https://spectator.org/the-comey-brennan-conspiracy-to-violate-trumps-civil-rights/?fbclid=IwAR3P03W58G6g7Mxqd_MMJ3WGj7vAncewVEa_J7xfJOSCl7fBxWd2YVnzlRE
” Let’s draw a line in the sand on this one.”
I heartily concur with the sentiment. My question is, with what? Our side does not have the votes or the cash. What’s left? The emperor has no clothes and the majority are tickled pink. Kalifornia is passing through “King Rat” on it’s way to “Lord of the flies”. At the speed of the internet.
You can vote yourself into socialism, but not out. You will have to shoot your way out.
” Let’s draw a line in the sand on this one.”
Totally agree with RHT about his assessment of the above comment. Whats the point in a Government comprised of a lopsided majority, and seat filled with” tow the line elected” following party mandates.
Additionally the mandatory disclosure of financial records That California is promoting about Presidents campaigning in that State, clearly has other intentions.
(Why not ALL candidates for ANY office if you what better representation).
Clearly nothing on the books in California in 2016 would have changed the 2016 results, and the possible effect in 2020 is only to limit the number of GOP voter’s attending the polls.
When and if passed in this fall’s session (and likely to pass), than what was the purpose? I suggest it is to create a “why vote attitude” among the opposition, if a voter feels their vote is meaningless on anything.
(Could be a major contributor to people are leaving California)
If limiting voter turnout is the real intention to limit opposition to the majority party in power, we have seen this before in many forms throughout oppressed countries, and the eventual results, more big Government and less real power in voting.
However, eventually even that may bite them, much like Harry Reid’s nuclear vote rule, but will it be too late?
More and more California is becoming “Moscow by the sea” and bears a resemblance of political progress of the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) in the early 1930’s
His last comment of “You can vote yourself into socialism, but not out. You will have to shoot your way out” is a very real and troubling comment as well.
“We’re taxed to death in this state and were are getting next to nothing for it – wake up!”
Yes, we are taxed to death in this state but how about waking up to the local situation?
It is getting worse. Both CARD and the City are pushing for more tax increases next year!
This article is just as emotional and hysterical as it accuses kids of being. You’re calling people “lunatics” for supporting a change in the voting age from 18 to 17…that is by definition too small a change to constitute “lunacy,” but you just can’t help smearing people with even a minor disagreement. This article is another exhibit in the body of evidence indicating that Republicans are pants-wettingly afraid of more Americans voting. The last presidential election proved that you can’t get the majority of Americans to support your candidates or policies and you no longer need to due to voter suppression tactics that courts have found are intended to reduce turnout by voting blocs that don’t support your party. Maybe allowing 17-year-olds to vote would be a necessary counterbalance to those efforts.
Chris you are not being fair. You know very well that the article is laced with seasoned anger, not knee jerk hysteria. I’ll take full credit for being angry! Also, I’m drawing a very valid comparison between the lunatic left in Sacramento (and those that support them) and the common sense conservatives. You need only look at where CA once was, verses where we’ve sunken too today. Look at the totality of that long slide down that the left has wrought on CA!
Sure, I know there are some moderate democrats around, but not nearly enough to make a difference. They are as isolated as republicans. But, I will at least acknowledge there are some intelligent democrats so you won’t have to accuse me of painting with too broad a brush!
Now about 17 year old’s voting. There should be no debate on this! The evidence is prima-faci. It is that overwhelming!
The vote is too important to trust it to immature people.
Science says a teens brain is not fully matured and adults acknowledge kids have next to no life experience to help them rationalize. This is why kids are under the guardianship of their parents. This is why a 17 year can’t enter into a civil contract. This is why statutory rape laws exist. This is why car insurance is so high for teenagers!
C’mon Chris, I know you enjoy being the devils advocate, but be honest with me on this one. There is no way you or Libby would ever approve of 17 year old’s voting unless you were absolutely 100% confident they would vote with democrats. If you deny this, then I think you two are being disingenuous. You know teens are so gullible as to be trusting in those emotional arguments coming from the far left. They see the left as reactionary and for them that is titillating! Kids love that stuff. And the far left is so in-your-face over any number of radical issues, kids love that too! However, in contrast, the right seems so dull and gray and more like their parents, very blah.
Liberals are the new Pied Pipers. They are the permissive adults because they’re not very grown up themselves. We all know how kids want to stay up late, they want to eat junk food, they want to do all sorts of stuff that is neither wise nor healthy. Pied pipers say yes to this! But, standing in their way are the real adults saying no… and NO is [not] what they want to hear. NO is not a good sales pitch! YES… is and who better than to give them what they want, but the permissive, radical left with all their delusional thoughts about how to have a perfect world!
Kids are easily seduced by the dead-end socialist message and turned off by deep thinking, rational Americans talking about saving money for a rainy day, living well within your means and doing all that boring stuff that will payoff as they get older. Saying no, don’t do that because (insert logic and facts) is not what impulsive, gotta have it now people want to hear. We have plenty of older people who either huffed too much paint in their early years or never quite grew up that want what others have, but don’t want to work for it. They vote and they fall easy prey to the unicorn salesmen on the far left.
Chris why is it every argument somehow turns back to Trump? When I cited all the reasons why it’s wrong for 17 year old kids to vote I never once mentioned Trump. Trump has nothing to do with it. You really need to stop being so fixated over Trump, it’s not healthy.
Elizabeth Mayfield wrote a very nice letter to the editor supporting a teens right to vote. While the writer is obviously articulate, her plea that 16- to 17-year-olds should be able to vote leaves me very concerned.
She writes, “Being 17 is frustrating.” Well, that’s why you’re 17 and probably still living with the support and protection of your parents, who have every reason to be concerned about whom is elected. They’re the ones to be directly impacted with the decisions of elected officials, not the children living under their roof.
I believe her analogy that 16- and 17-year-olds can wreak more havoc because they have a driver’s license is patently absurd. Much more havoc can been created by a government that cannot protect the U.S. or spins this country into economic chaos.
America is awash now with a pop culture that transcends anything in recent memory. When MTV and TMZ are seen as paragons of how the world really is, then there is no doubt that a president could be elected simply by how great his light show or music is when he’s giving a speech.
Enjoy your youth, Elizabeth. You’ll have plenty of time to decide the fate of this nation, especially when it will impact
you the most. Bob Lanford
Examples of poor decisions – I disagree with Ms. Mayfield’s statement that a 16-year-old should be able to vote. According to experts, the frontal lobe of the brain is what tells us our actions have consequences, but it is not fully developed until a person is well into their 20s.
While able to obtain a driver’s license, teenagers cannot buy alcohol, and it is a crime to have sex, even consensually, with anyone under 18. Societal laws say teens often don’t make sound decisions.
Here are some examples I’ve read in the news just recently.
1) Night of graduation, teenager drowns while tied to a bicycle and pushed into lake as a prank.
2) Teenager driver passes out and causes massive wreck in tunnel while attempting to hold his breath until exiting.
3) Five teens hurt in wreck because passenger seat rider lit driver’s armpit hair on fire.
4) A 19-year-old mother and 14-year-old passenger hide baby in trunk for fear of getting ticket for no baby seat.
Yes, we adults make some stupid decisions, too, but at least we have some skin in the game.
Carroll Kennemer, Plano, TX
“When MTV and TMZ are seen as paragons of how the world really is, then there is no doubt that a president could be elected simply by how great his light show or music is when he’s giving a speech.”
I actually LOLed. This person has absolutely no idea what teenagers are interested in if they still think most of them are watching MTV or, lol again, TMZ. As for the danger of electing a bombastic, know-nothing celebrity as president, lol thrice—adults have the market cornered on that, and young people were far less likely to support the reality show president in the last election and more likely to support the qualified woman who worked her entire life to earn the position.
I barely alluded to Trump, and the point wasn’t really about him, it was about Republican voter suppression efforts. That Trump was a beneficiary of said efforts was a side note, an example that supported the point but was hardly the only one I could have chosen.
But since you brought him up by name, how about we say that in the next election, we both agree to vote for a president we can trust not to tweet out inaccurate information during a hurricane? That seems reasonable to me.
Chris, what voter suppression efforts? History says democrats their dirty tricks operatives are the one’s noted for that. Also having dead people vote. It’s laughable to think the GOP would even consider such a terrible thing, you’ve it completely backwards.
Don’t play dumb. It doesn’t suit you. “Dead people voting” is a lie that has been fact-checked to death, and it’s a lie meant to justify those exact voter suppression efforts I’m talking about. Several court cases have found that voter ID laws are based on shoddy evidence and are intended to reduce the black vote. Polling places have been closed in heavily black areas. The Supreme Court just found that the census question about citizenship was purposefully meant to reduce the voting power of Hispanic citizens—don’t pretend you didn’t know that, because I told you about it.
And you didn’t answer me about my proposed deal. Is wanting a president who won’t tweet inaccurate information about a hurricane an unreasonable standard?
Coincidentally, I just came across this tweet:
“North Carolina Republicans passed a 2013 voter ID law where they ordered data on which types of ID black voters were less likely to have than whites, then made it so only those IDs counted for voting. A federal court said it targeted black voters “with almost surgical precision”
https://twitter.com/politicswolf/status/1169047240049999872?s=21
There are two options here: you know about these things and pretend not to, or you don’t know about these things because your news sources are crap. Which is it?
Chris, I vaguely remember this North Carolina law that was reversed by one of the most liberal Judges in a Federal Circuit court. I looked her up and son of a gun, it was none other than William Jefferson Clinton that appointed her to the bench. Prior to this she was defending a terrorist by choice, American by birth, who was caught on the battle field in Afghanistan. Nice, huh? She is a self described liberal Democrat, so make no mistake on this one.
But, I digress. Seems NC wanted voters to show a picture ID before they cast a vote and this was in order to prevent voter fraud. The legislature thought it reasonable. At this time there were a number of cases of voter fraud in the news and no doubt this had something to do with wanting clean elections, imagine that? Clean elections is hardly an evil motive.
Personally, I don’t see a problem with voters presenting a photo ID be it a license or id card issued by their state, do you?
Sadly they appealed their case up to the 4th District and that lower court said in part, as writen by Diana Motz, our liberal democrat judge,”This data showed that African Americans disproportionately lacked the most common kind of photo ID, those issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Id. The pre-Shelby County version of SL 2013-381 provided that all government-issued IDs, even many that had been expired, would satisfy the requirement as an alternative to DMV-issued photo IDs.” Of course the left played the race card, but was it really racist?
I guess if black Americans were somehow being denied entry to the DMV, you could say that, but they were not, they had the same opportunity to get a State ID card as anyone else.
Lets be real….who doesn’t have some sort of photo ID these days?
I think the judge in this case would have made a much stronger case just to cite the Constitutional law about have no impediment to voting….but by her throwing in a racist allegation she went too far. Racism is a case of mens-raya. How do you prove that? The facts are not in evidence and look at the long list of people on the appellate side. Do you think they were all racially motivated? Clearly, the judges accusation was beyond her scope of expertise and not subject to her interpretation.
In this age, you can’t do even the most basic banking, check cashing or use welfare cash cards without a valid photo ID. So I don’t know if this was the best example you could have found to prove beyond a doubt that some old white Republicans thought this would be a great way to keep blacks from voting? Maybe to keep them from voting more than once…yes, but to stop them from voting? C’mon. If it was it was, then it was so incredibly easy to get around this obstacle as to be no obstacle at all. I can’t believe there was more than a handful of people in the whole state who could not get a photo ID card, including a few whites. But, the lower court was swayed and that’s that, or is it?
Things are rarely as black and white as we might like them to be, no pun intended.
Jack, did you see this? Real eye opener on the corruption to our elections from the democrats.
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz Questions Dr. Robert Epstein:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=dr+robert+epstein+ted+cruz&&view=detail&mid=592D7B1C069194A92626592D7B1C069194A92626&&FORM=VRDGAR
More from Dr. Epstein.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=dr+robert+epstein&&view=detail&mid=D4AF952EC26AE6B1FB05D4AF952EC26AE6B1FB05&&FORM=VRDGAR
Jack, we have fundamentally different premises–I believe all accused are entitled to a defense, and you believe defense lawyers who defend people you don’t like are inherently suspect. I believe we should criticize judges by citing their legal reasoning and explaining why it’s wrong, and you think it’s damning enough to point out that they were appointed by a Democrat. No wonder we can’t see eye to eye on voter suppression–these are fundamental disagreements over what a democracy is and who it’s for. As for evidence of intentional racism, I already showed it to you. You just refuse to see it.
Well thank you for telling me what I think Chris! But, predictably you have it wrong again. This is what happens when you go engaging in mind-reading. “I believe all accused are entitled to a defense, and you believe defense lawyers who defend people you don’t like are inherently suspect.”
You could mention my main point instead? That was, the judge was a self proclaimed liberal. That makes her “decision suspect” because she has a predisposed pollical bias. Some might call that a conflict of interest. She is too politically invested to make that kind of court decision without people wondering if this was her bias speaking and not the facts?
That is a reasonable point that you sidestepped.
Yes, she chose to defend a terrorist caught on the battlefield in Afghanistan attempting to kill Americans, but that’s NOT a justifiable reason to be even remotely suspicious of her judicial motives?
How about the fact that she was a Clinton appointee? Reverse that and lets say we were talking about a Trump appointee, bet that would raise your eyebrow, right? See what I mean? I think it takes a special kind of liberal-lawyer to go out of their way to defend an enemy of America when International law says such people fall into a whole other category, where having a court trial and a defense lawyer is not a right! We went through all that before with John Philip Walker Lindh. He was another traitor captured as an enemy combatant in Afghanistan.
You implied I think that ALL defense lawyers are inherently suspect if they represent people I don’t like? lol Wow, that’s a quantum leap and it couldn’t be further from the truth.
Most of the evidence shows that brains aren’t fully developed until age 25. The difference between 17 and 18, again, is not large enough to justify your hysterical tone on this issue.
Your claims that Libby and I wouldn’t support 17-year-olds voting if they voted Republican are pure projection. Your last few paragraphs prove you oppose it because they vote Democrat. I don’t support 17-year-olds voting now, even though most would likely vote for my preferred party. But I also think your tone here is unreasonable and you ignore far more pressing threats to democracy and the right to vote because those threats end up benefitting your party.
Chris, I am only one person and I can only do so much. If you agree now that its a bad idea to have 17 year people vote, then my work on this is done and we can move on to better, more compelling things.
I agreed that 17-year-olds shouldn’t vote before you wrote the article, which almost gave me the motivation to change my mind in the other direction because it was so panicky.
Chris,
Why 17? Why not 15? After all, a kid can get a learners permit to drive a car at 15.
And Chris, could you tell me how many genders you think there are?
A change from 18 to 15 would be too large at the present time. But I don’t favor 17-year-olds voting. But “Why not 15?” is not a good argument to not allow 17-year-olds to vote, because there is a large maturity gap between those two ages. It’s a slippery slope fallacy.
I don’t know how many genders there are and neither do you, and no conversation about that topic would be productive with you.
Dang, you crack me up.
And you almost killed me, man! (If you are a man…can’t be to sure when talking to a person who doesn’t know how many genders there are.)
I can’t read this stuff without nearly choking to death laughing.
Maybe I find a good lawyer and sue you for almost killing me. 🙂
More hate from the intolerable left.
Intolerant Hollywood Stars Demand Blacklist For The Intolerant [Satire]:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/51358/intolerant-hollywood-stars-demand-blacklist-andrew-klavan?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dwbrand
Whoopi woke up.
Whoopi Goldberg Goes Off on Debra Messing: ‘You Don’t Have the Right!’:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/whoopi-goldberg-goes-off-on-debra-messing-on-the-view-you-dont-have-the-right
Remember when your side blacklisted the Dixie Chicks?
I remember they said some pretty disrespectful things about their country while being visitors in another country. People who like that sort of music were deeply offended and it cost them a lot of fans.
What did they say that was disrespectful about their country?
The site isn’t allowing multi-paragraph replies again, so bear with me: You could mention my main point instead? That was, the judge was a self proclaimed liberal. That makes her “decision suspect” because she has a predisposed pollical bias. Some might call that a conflict of interest. She is too politically invested to make that kind of court decision without people wondering if this was her bias speaking and not the facts? No. If you applied this to every judge, then almost no judge’s decisions could be respected. Judges tend to be informed people with political leanings. They also are trained to apply the law fairly and put their biases aside. While that doesn’t always happen, you’ve given no evidence that bias impacted this particular decision; the fact that a judge identifies as a liberal or conservative is NOT enough to doubt their impartiality in their legal decisions.Yes, she chose to defend a terrorist caught on the battlefield in Afghanistan attempting to kill Americans, but that’s NOT a justifiable reason to be even remotely suspicious of her judicial motives? No, it is not. How about the fact that she was a Clinton appointee? Reverse that and lets say we were talking about a Trump appointee, bet that would raise your eyebrow, right? No. See what I mean? I think it takes a special kind of liberal-lawyer to go out of their way to defend an enemy of America when International law says such people fall into a whole other category, where having a court trial and a defense lawyer is not a right! International law does not say that. The Bush administration argued that, and it was an embarrassingly bad and anti-American argument.
Chris, you say I have given no evidence, but I did or at least what I felt was evidence. Remember I said prima faci? Her verbiage as noted in her decision was my evidence. It went beyond fact finding and into the area of mens rea. She posted facts not in evidence and that is why I felt she was showing her bias. You may disagree, but that’s my opinion.
There was evidence of racist intent. I cited it earlier.