133
Vivek Ramaswamy calls Juneteenth 'useless' 2 months after posting a video celebrating it
(www.nbcnews.com)
this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2023
133 points (95.2% liked)
politics
19119 readers
2626 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We already had unpassable tests used to disenfranchise people for a long time. I wonder if you don't know about those or just agree with how they were used.
The most ignorant and racist people I know are all over 25, why would you only want it for those under 26?
This is not a personal attack, the truth is I know nothing about you, and my assumption is that you're most likely a decent human being, as most of us strive to be.
The first reason for my comment is that we've already had a series of 'common sense' laws (in the US) that were used to not allow certain people to participate in the electoral process. These were called literacy tests, and you can read about them here and see an example test.
The other reason is that advocating for stripping rights from other people should not be taken lightly. While young people can be misinformed and make silly mistakes, they are old enough to reason things out and understand the consequeces of their actions, and older people are not immune to any of the things that you mentioned.
Furthermore, the issue of young people not having enough knowledge about the civic process falls squarely on the shoulders of those people in their lives that are teaching them. If your their own parents, teachers, and other role models do not stress the importance of these things, it is unreasonable to expect the average person to be interested.
Finally, this idea of raising the voting age has been floated (recently) since the demographics of the last election came back and showed that young people voted in much higher numbers than usual. It is seen by many people as a naked attempt to game the system to keep people who are voting against republicans from casting their most likely dissenting votes.
Look, you didn't do anything wrong here. You expressed yourself, and a lot of people are jaded because there are a lot of people online who just like to rile people up or are being paid to say intentionally inflammatory things, or they're having a bad day, or take your pick. This is how we learn.
When my daughter was born, we asked the nurses about things our parents had taught us that were now considered not the best way to do things. They told us "when we know better, we do better," and that phrase has really stuck with me.
I hope this interaction hasn't turned you off politics in general, and I wish you the best in your future online commenting endeavors.
No matter what political affiliation you have, I would wager that the current mess was not created by 18 year olds voting but older people. So if you want to be ‘fair’ and ‘reasonable’, hoe about we put restrictions on older voters on a sliding and increasingly more difficult scale?
18 - 25 : your good to go 25 - 40 : you need some civics tests 40 - 60 : civic + psycholigical testing 60 - 70 : civics + psychological + dementia testing 70+ : you no longer get to vote as your time has past and consequences are no longer your concern yet can harm upcoming generations
If you want limitations and testing, this is a fair proposal. I guess you would logically have to agree with this, yes?