UK to lower voting age to 16

[Maia]

That said, you seemed pretty harsh. I haven't read the whole exchange so perhaps she was harsh on you.

I would say just look at racist and antisemitic reply Grandwizard22 wrote on page 1 of this thread, look at Maia's yes-and response to that. I don't have the slightest respect for such people and neither do I fake it.

I said:

+++Everyone now seems to believe that a civil war of some sort is inevitable. I hope they're wrong, but I fear they are not.+++

What on earth is wrong with that?

[Maia]

You can join the UK military at 16 but you can't vote at 16.

I'm not sure that's relevant.

Imagine explaining it to the 16 year old soldier. You can serve and die for the country but you cannot choose the leaders that may decide what criteria they use to send you to potential death. And if you sign on at 16 or 17, you are committed to serve until you are 22. I actually think that's more absurd than letting them vote at 16. That's a gut reaction. The media influence on how they might view larger policies seems less dangerous that media influencing how they view what it means for them as individuals to be in the army and in war.

I'm not sure that it's a good idea to have 16 year olds in the army. Army cadets, for sure, but not the regular army.

[FlashDangerpants]

That said, you seemed pretty harsh. I haven't read the whole exchange so perhaps she was harsh on you.

I would say just look at racist and antisemitic reply Grandwizard22 wrote on page 1 of this thread, look at Maia's yes-and response to that. I don't have the slightest respect for such people and neither do I fake it.

I said:

+++Everyone now seems to believe that a civil war of some sort is inevitable. I hope they're wrong, but I fear they are not.+++

What on earth is wrong with that?

You read that horrible racist antisemitc stuff he wrote, and your comment on the matter was to just roll with it and add your own thoughts. You just went with what he wrote. Nobody I can respect would do that.

[Iwannaplato]

I'm not sure that's relevant.

Imagine explaining it to the 16 year old soldier. You can serve and die for the country but you cannot choose the leaders that may decide what criteria they use to send you to potential death. And if you sign on at 16 or 17, you are committed to serve until you are 22. I actually think that's more absurd than letting them vote at 16. That's a gut reaction. The media influence on how they might view larger policies seems less dangerous that media influencing how they view what it means for them as individuals to be in the army and in war.

I'm not sure that it's a good idea to have 16 year olds in the army. Army cadets, for sure, but not the regular army.

then we agree on that one. But since they can be and are, it's a problem if they're not allowed to vote.

[Maia]

I would say just look at racist and antisemitic reply Grandwizard22 wrote on page 1 of this thread, look at Maia's yes-and response to that. I don't have the slightest respect for such people and neither do I fake it.

I said:

+++Everyone now seems to believe that a civil war of some sort is inevitable. I hope they're wrong, but I fear they are not.+++

What on earth is wrong with that?

You read that horrible racist antisemitc stuff he wrote, and your comment on the matter was to just roll with it and add your own thoughts. You just went with what he wrote. Nobody I can respect would do that.

How can you possibly interpret saying nothing as expressing an opinion?

But, since you brought it up, I've been to Israel on a school trip when I was 17 and found the place fascinating. I have friends in Israel who I've stayed in touch with, one in particular, and very much consider myself to be a supporter of Israel and its right to exist and defend itself.

[FlashDangerpants]

I said:

+++Everyone now seems to believe that a civil war of some sort is inevitable. I hope they're wrong, but I fear they are not.+++

What on earth is wrong with that?

You read that horrible racist antisemitc stuff he wrote, and your comment on the matter was to just roll with it and add your own thoughts. You just went with what he wrote. Nobody I can respect would do that.

How can you possibly interpret saying nothing as expressing an opinion?

When it comes to Fascism, the big main lesson you are supposed to learn from history is that the people who quietly ignored it while it happened under their noses were the bad guys.

But, since you brought it up, I've been to Israel on a school trip when I was 17 and found the place fascinating. I have friends in Israel who I've stayed in touch with, one in particular, and very much consider myself to be a supporter of Israel and its right to exist and defend itself.

You weren't 18 so obviously it doesn't count.

[phyllo]

Please "educate" me more.

You asked for it, you got it.

Well? Where is it? Going to answer my questions?

Didn't think so.

I didn't realize that I was not allowed to eat or sleep first.

[phyllo]

Who is this insidious group who's going to do this nefarious thing? And which helpless waifs are they out to "suppress"?

Well, the US administration will, if they can.

AI Overview
Based on recent reports, some political figures, particularly in the2025–2026 political climate, have used severe rhetoric to describe the Democratic Party, with advisor Stephen Miller and certain White House officials labeling it a "domestic extremist organization" or accusing it of being part of an "organized campaign of radical left terrorism".

Find some way of crippling or eliminating an opposition party. Still in early stages.

The active voter suppression is the change to voter ID laws. There is no evidence that current ID requirements are insufficient to prevent large scale fraud.

Our democracy works best when everybody can participate. But a new bill in Congress, the SAVE America Act — similar to its predecessor the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act — could silence millions of voters by creating new barriers to voter registration that make it harder for Americans to make their voices heard.

Despite their different names, these bills are fundamentally the same — they would silence millions of Americans by creating new barriers to voter registration.

Below are some of the many ways the SAVE America Act and the SAVE Act could prevent Americans from participating in the democratic process.

Documentation Barriers

When registering to vote, Americans are already required to verify their eligibility. But these 2 bills impose unnecessary barriers to the registration process, requiring voters to provide documentation that many don’t have.

More than 21 million Americans are unable to access the additional documents that would be required to register to vote under these bills. People of color, married people who have changed their names, as well as young and elderly people are more likely to have difficulty in accessing these documents.

Under these bills, most voters wouldn’t be able to register to vote with their driver's license alone, because licenses generally do not indicate citizenship. Instead, they would need another less common form of documentation, like a U.S. passport or birth certificate.

The SAVE America Act and the SAVE Act could affect registered voters too. Any time somebody updates their registration, if they change their address or political party, they would need to provide these documents.

The SAVE America Act would also implement a national voter ID requirement that is more burdensome than almost every single state voter ID law currently in effect.

These additional requirements would force voters to jump through unnecessary hurdles to exercise a fundamental freedom in our democracy.

https://campaignlegal.org/update/what-y ... t-save-act

[Maia]

You read that horrible racist antisemitc stuff he wrote, and your comment on the matter was to just roll with it and add your own thoughts. You just went with what he wrote. Nobody I can respect would do that.

How can you possibly interpret saying nothing as expressing an opinion?

When it comes to Fascism, the big main lesson you are supposed to learn from history is that the people who quietly ignored it while it happened under their noses were the bad guys.

But, since you brought it up, I've been to Israel on a school trip when I was 17 and found the place fascinating. I have friends in Israel who I've stayed in touch with, one in particular, and very much consider myself to be a supporter of Israel and its right to exist and defend itself.

You weren't 18 so obviously it doesn't count.

So the bad guys weren't the actual fascists themselves? Thanks for clearing that up.

Have you ever been tempted to keep quiet about the rape gangs?

I was nearly 18, but even so, it was a formative experience. Like what you have when you're a teenager.

[Immanuel Can]

Who is this insidious group who's going to do this nefarious thing? And which helpless waifs are they out to "suppress"?

Well, the US administration will, if they can.

Evidence, dear sir: where is your evidence for this prophecy of what you realize that they haven't done, but which you assure me they will do?

The active voter suppression is the change to voter ID laws.

Utterly ridiculous, and insulting to minorities, as well.

Is it plausible to believe this assertion that blacks and Hispanics are simply too stupid or inept to be able to acquire any basic government ID? I've met many, and I assure you, I've never met even one who could not acquire a basic ID...the same ID required for them to drive a car, or travel outside the country, or, in some cases, go fishing or hunting. And whenever you actually ask them such a thing, they look at you like, "Are you mentally impaired?"

This is the most absurd and insulting protest by the Dem Party that they have yet issued...and racist, to boot. If AI is programmed to make us believe this, then it's manifestly programmed to issue the ridiculous propaganda of a party that is just flatly lying to the public, in the interest of undermining anything the opposition does, at all costs, by any means, no matter how implausible.

Shame on AI for repeating it...if AI could ever feel shame. Too bad it can't.

[phyllo]

Is it plausible to believe this assertion that blacks and Hispanics are simply too stupid or inept to be able to acquire any basic government ID? I've met many, and I assure you, I've never met even one who could not acquire a basic ID...the same ID required for them to drive a car, or travel outside the country, or, in some cases, go fishing or hunting. And whenever you actually ask them such a thing, they look at you like, "Are you mentally impaired?"

They're not stupid or inept.

If they have these IDs now, which they can use to vote, then why do they need to expend more effort, time and money to get another unnecessary ID?

Answer: Trump administration is betting that process is going to discourage some fraction of that target group.

BTW, travel outside of the country requires a passport which is an expensive pain in the butt ID. Half of Americans don't have a passport.

[Immanuel Can]

Is it plausible to believe this assertion that blacks and Hispanics are simply too stupid or inept to be able to acquire any basic government ID? I've met many, and I assure you, I've never met even one who could not acquire a basic ID...the same ID required for them to drive a car, or travel outside the country, or, in some cases, go fishing or hunting. And whenever you actually ask them such a thing, they look at you like, "Are you mentally impaired?"

They're not stupid or inept.

If they have these IDs now, which they can use to vote, then why do they need to expend more effort, time and money to get another unnecessary ID?

Well, it would be just fine if the government said, "We want a specific citizenship ID for voting." That's not unreasonable, since nobody is so stupid or inept they couldn't get it. But the truth is much simpler: that ANY ID works, including the ID that you admit they already have. And absent an ID, in many states, they can present a signature, as well.

So where is this "suppression"? There's zero evidence for it. All the "voter suppression" allegation really proves is that the Dems truly believe their followers are so stupid or so blindly partisan that they'll literally believe anything.

And that is maybe the most insulting thing.

[phyllo]

Well, it would be just fine if the government said, "We want a specific citizenship ID for voting." That's not unreasonable, since nobody is so stupid or inept they couldn't get it. But the truth is much simpler: that ANY ID works, including the ID that you admit they already have. And absent an ID, in many states, they can present a signature, as well.

Did you actually read the proposed SAVE act requirements?

Seriously, what a waste of time you are.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, it would be just fine if the government said, "We want a specific citizenship ID for voting." That's not unreasonable, since nobody is so stupid or inept they couldn't get it. But the truth is much simpler: that ANY ID works, including the ID that you admit they already have. And absent an ID, in many states, they can present a signature, as well.

Did you actually read the proposed SAVE act requirements?

I already pointed out: I have no problem at all with any government requiring a new ID, or using the existing ones. I don't even object to the practice some states have of using a signature in substitute. Nor should you, I would say.

You've already admitted that nobody is too stupid or inept to get one. So exactly what can your objection be?

Are you thinking that it will disenfranchise the dead? Or are you worried that it will cut out the illegal aliens Biden admitted to bolster the vote? For exactly whom are you crying here, Argentina?

[phyllo]

Well, it would be just fine if the government said, "We want a specific citizenship ID for voting." That's not unreasonable, since nobody is so stupid or inept they couldn't get it. But the truth is much simpler: that ANY ID works, including the ID that you admit they already have. And absent an ID, in many states, they can present a signature, as well.

Did you actually read the proposed SAVE act requirements?

I already pointed out: I have no problem at all with any government requiring a new ID, or using the existing ones. I don't even object to the practice some states have of using a signature in substitute. Nor should you, I would say.

You've already admitted that nobody is too stupid or inept to get one. So exactly what can your objection be?

Are you thinking that it will disenfranchise the dead? Or are you worried that it will cut out the illegal aliens Biden admitted to bolster the vote? For exactly whom are you crying here, Argentina?

Do you actually read my posts?

Do you understand what I am saying in my posts?

Illegal aliens don't vote.

Dead people don't vote.

That's all bullshit Trump propaganda.