Should Election Day be Held on April 16th?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Char. Limit
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
36 replies · 6K views
calculusrocks said:
If the youth had any idea how much of a burden is going to be placed on them, they'd be protesting. Social Security, the politicians spent it. Health Care, if passed it'll be bankrupt before I'm 70. Conjecture? Maybe. All I know is that the numbers don't add up.

Al68 said:
Protesting? More like locking and loading.

King George could only have imagined this kind of power in his wildest fantasies.

Youth don't vote. Old people do.
Citizens age 65 and older had the highest registration rate (79 percent) while those age 18 to 24 had the lowest (58 percent). The youngest group also had the lowest voting rate (47 percent), while those age 45 and older had the highest turnout (about 70 percent).
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/voting/004986.html

People that don't vote deserve to have their money taken by those that do. Consider it an education. With any luck, today's youth will learn how voting works by time they're old and they can vote to have tomorrow's youth support them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Al68 said:
Protesting? More like locking and loading.

King George could only have imagined this kind of power in his wildest fantasies.

If King George ran for president as a third party candidate, he'd split the democrat vote.

BobG said:
Youth don't vote. Old people do.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/voting/004986.html

People that don't vote deserve to have their money taken by those that do. Consider it an education. With any luck, today's youth will learn how voting works and fix the current system with courage.
FYP :biggrin:

It clearly is generational theft. I would have hoped the voting populace wouldn't take it upon themselves to vote themselves all the entitlements they possibly can. This thwarts the Republic as it was founded, and descends toward a democracy of mob rule. There can be no moral justification for this generational theft.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Al68 said:
King George could only have imagined this kind of power in his wildest fantasies.

calculusrocks said:
If King George ran for president as a third party candidate, he'd split the democrat vote.

Off topic, but King George was very popular in the American colonies for a long time as one of very few people in British government protecting American interests from Parliamentary taxes. In fact, as late as 1766, New York was erecting statues of King George to celebrate his (and his prime minister) finally pushing through repeal of the Stamp Act that was so unpopular in America. So, yes, if King of the United Kingdom and Ireland had been an elected position, Americans probably would have voted for him - especially anti-tax Republicans.

Americans even held tea parties supporting King George - and in the more traditional sense. The tea parties they had held in honor of King George added extra significance to the Boston Tea Party, when it occurred.

He really didn't become unpopular until Americans convened the First Continental Congress, appealed to King George to intervene on their behalf in Parliament, and, instead, were met with the response that the Continental Congress placed the colonies in open rebellion and that members of Congress were traitors. After that, the gloves were off and villainizing a single individual provided a more focused imaged than villainizing a faceless Parliament.

Plus, King George was at least publically committed to fighting American independence for eternity, no matter how long it took, no matter how much it cost, no matter how many lives it cost. That wasn't a position likely to increase his popularity in America, but, by that time, he wasn't very concerned about his American poll numbers. (Actually, being at war against the American colonies, France, and Spain, all at the same time, didn't make him all that popular in the United Kingdom, either.)
 
Last edited:
BobG, are you ephebiphobic or something? Even the newly adults had a voter registration rate of more than 50%. That's a majority. Today's youith does know how voting works, and a majority of them register. Near a majority vote.

However, since a youth majority seems to signify laziness to you, or something, I'll be glad to riot.
 
Char. Limit said:
BobG, are you ephebiphobic or something? Even the newly adults had a voter registration rate of more than 50%. That's a majority. Today's youith does know how voting works, and a majority of them register. Near a majority vote.

However, since a youth majority seems to signify laziness to you, or something, I'll be glad to riot.

Is "near a majority" a synonym for "minority"? :smile:
 
Near a majority is a synonym for "above 45%"...
 
BobG said:
Youth don't vote. Old people do.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/voting/004986.html

People that don't vote deserve to have their money taken by those that do. Consider it an education. With any luck, today's youth will learn how voting works by time they're old and they can vote to have tomorrow's youth support them.
LOL, with any luck, huh? I'm not entirely sure, but I'll assume this is a joke. :approve:
 
Last edited by a moderator: