CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

Coordinated Youth Policy
Lower voting age to 16
Children and young people must have greater opportunities to participate in decision making affecting their lives.

http://greens.org.au/policies/children-young-people

Meanwhile

Labor will look at dropping voting age to 16, says Bill Shorten

They can serve in the army, get a gun licence, drive a car, fly a plane and even leave home, but there's one thing no 16 or 17-year-old in Australia can do - yet - and that's vote in a federal election.

But Opposition Leader Bill Shorten wants that to change that and in a speech on Saturday to a young Labor Party conference in Sydney, he will outline a plan to enfranchise an estimated half a million voters if the ALP is elected.

The ambitious proposal is designed to galvanise interest in politics among younger Australians and comes as 400,000 Australians aged 18-24 did not enrol to vote between 2010 and 2013.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labor-will-look-at-dropping-voting-age-to-16-says-bill-shorten-20151030-gkmy9o.html


Seems labor is in panic mode over it's inability to attracted young people into old labor.

An analysis by Ian McAllister, from the School of Politics and International Relations at the Australian National University, suggested that if the voting age were lowered to include 16- and 17-year-olds, about 474,000 extra voters would come on to the electoral roll, or about 3 per cent of the total electorate.

According to the analysis, the Labor vote would remain unchanged, the Coalition vote would decline by 0.2 per cent and the Greens and other vote would increase by 0.1 per cent.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bill-shorten-to-push-for-lower-voting-age/story-fn59niix-1227588806511?sv=cc75817a6820ae80172c52a6098b6df4

What a joke, the watermelons and labor are in their last gasps  and getting desperate ever since they have been flushed down the sewer.

Interesting read on how bigger mess both Liberals and Labor are.


Liberals thumb their noses at party reform



http://www.smh.com.au/comment/liberals-thumb-their-noses-at-party-reform-20151030-gkn480.html

When I saw the title of this thread, I though it was just a bloggers idea.

I was not too interested in voting when I was 16

Young progressive people believe the world is theirs to shape. Where as young conservatives have their parents as role models and so are disillusioned.

It's understandable young conservatives don't want the blame for a messy and destructive conservative government in office and so don't want the vote.

Utter Bullshit, you guys and bull shitten are hard up for votes period, and think you can suck in gullible children.

That sums up this ludicrous scenario spot on.

____ wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 2:54am:

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE Coordinated Youth Policy Lower voting age to 16 Children and young people must have greater opportunities to participate in decision making affecting their lives. http://greens.org.au/policies/children-young-people Meanwhile Labor will look at dropping voting age to 16, says Bill Shorten They can serve in the army, get a gun licence, drive a car, fly a plane and even leave home, but there's one thing no 16 or 17-year-old in Australia can do - yet - and that's vote in a federal election. But Opposition Leader Bill Shorten wants that to change that and in a speech on Saturday to a young Labor Party conference in Sydney, he will outline a plan to enfranchise an estimated half a million voters if the ALP is elected. The ambitious proposal is designed to galvanise interest in politics among younger Australians and comes as 400,000 Australians aged 18-24 did not enrol to vote between 2010 and 2013. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labor-will-look-at-dropping-voting-age-to-16-says-bill-shorten-20151030-gkmy9o.html Seems labor is in panic mode over it's inability to attracted young people into old labor.

Like most socialists, he knows very little about serving in the ADF, you can not serve in the ADF at 16 - 17 without your parents permission.

Maybe you should only be allowed to vote under those conditions too, if you want it to be like servig your country.

Friggen numpties.

Just another seemingly–progressive idea from the conservative Greens. Gestures and hollow rhetoric as always, drawing attention away from the fact the Greens are right wing neocons with no interest in the environment.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 4:28am:

I was not too interested in voting when I was 16

I find it impossible to give a f**ck at 51

Quote:

.......................comes as 400,000 Australians aged 18-24 did not enrol to vote between 2010 and 2013..........

what a bad idea.

BigOl64 wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 5:10am:

____ wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 2:54am: CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE Coordinated Youth Policy Lower voting age to 16 Children and young people must have greater opportunities to participate in decision making affecting their lives. http://greens.org.au/policies/children-young-people Meanwhile Labor will look at dropping voting age to 16, says Bill Shorten They can serve in the army, get a gun licence, drive a car, fly a plane and even leave home, but there's one thing no 16 or 17-year-old in Australia can do - yet - and that's vote in a federal election. But Opposition Leader Bill Shorten wants that to change that and in a speech on Saturday to a young Labor Party conference in Sydney, he will outline a plan to enfranchise an estimated half a million voters if the ALP is elected. The ambitious proposal is designed to galvanise interest in politics among younger Australians and comes as 400,000 Australians aged 18-24 did not enrol to vote between 2010 and 2013. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labor-will-look-at-dropping-voting-age-to-16-says-bill-shorten-20151030-gkmy9o.html Seems labor is in panic mode over it's inability to attracted young people into old labor. Like most socialists, he knows very little about serving in the ADF, you can not serve in the ADF at 16 - 17 without your parents permission. Maybe you should only be allowed to vote under those conditions too, if you want it to be like servig your country. Friggen numpties.

The 16 years olds who are independent and not living at home.
Why should they ask permission?

BigOl64 wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 5:13am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 4:28am: I was not too interested in voting when I was 16 I find it impossible to give a f**ck at 51

Possibly better to share about your sex issues in the relationship section big.

____ wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 5:23am:

BigOl64 wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 5:13am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 4:28am: I was not too interested in voting when I was 16 I find it impossible to give a f**ck at 51 Possibly better to share about your sex issues in the relationship section big.

lol......he needs some big ole Viagra.

I doubt many 16 and 17 year old kids are into politics.

Leave the voting age as it is.

However, Labor know that this will be in their favour if the policy was adopted.

BigOl64 wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 5:10am:

____ wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 2:54am: CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE Coordinated Youth Policy Lower voting age to 16 Children and young people must have greater opportunities to participate in decision making affecting their lives. http://greens.org.au/policies/children-young-people Meanwhile Labor will look at dropping voting age to 16, says Bill Shorten They can serve in the army, get a gun licence, drive a car, fly a plane and even leave home, but there's one thing no 16 or 17-year-old in Australia can do - yet - and that's vote in a federal election. But Opposition Leader Bill Shorten wants that to change that and in a speech on Saturday to a young Labor Party conference in Sydney, he will outline a plan to enfranchise an estimated half a million voters if the ALP is elected. The ambitious proposal is designed to galvanise interest in politics among younger Australians and comes as 400,000 Australians aged 18-24 did not enrol to vote between 2010 and 2013. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labor-will-look-at-dropping-voting-age-to-16-says-bill-shorten-20151030-gkmy9o.html Seems labor is in panic mode over it's inability to attracted young people into old labor. Like most socialists, he knows very little about serving in the ADF, you can not serve in the ADF at 16 - 17 without your parents permission. Maybe you should only be allowed to vote under those conditions too, if you want it to be like servig your country. Friggen numpties.

Really?

That's news.

But you are correct, they can't serve (legally, tho many did lie about their age to enlist during WW1).

And no, I don't consider the average 16-year-old to be 'switched on' enough to vote.

Little bit of history to people that don't want the voting age lowed to 16.

It was the McMahon government that passed the law in parliament so 18 years old could vote. McMahon didn't give it to the Governor-General to get the Royal Assent to bring it into law before the 1972 election, Whitlam gave the bill to the Governor-General to get the Royal Assent.

There was a young person that try to get the High Court to get McMahon to give the bill to the Governor-General to get the royal Assent before the 1972 election so 18yo could vote. The High Court was going to hear the case AFTER the 1972 election. But it become law before the case was heard.

Just another useless thought bubble brought to you by Bull Shitten...

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 6:57am:

Just another useless thought bubble brought to you by Bull Shitten...

Calling someone names tells me that you have lost the argument.

Labor voter wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 7:05am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 6:57am: Just another useless thought bubble brought to you by Bull Shitten... Calling someone names tells me that you have lost the argument.

Get a job and pay some tax, you loafer.

BigOl64 wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 5:13am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 4:28am: I was not too interested in voting when I was 16 I find it impossible to give a f**ck at 51

:)

Should raise it to 30, after the last election result you have to question the electorates maturity falling for 3 word slogans.

How about we INCREASE the voting age to 25? There goes half the Green vote an a percent of Labor's vote

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 7:09am:

Labor voter wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 7:05am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 6:57am: Just another useless thought bubble brought to you by Bull Shitten... Calling someone names tells me that you have lost the argument. Get a job and pay some tax, you loafer.

This is a post I put in the Tens Of Thousands Angry About Centrelink thead reply #30




Quote:

I am on the old age pension and I work for 50 years paying my fair share of taxes, and I never complain about the amount  of taxes I paid. I know that the taxes I paid back then help to paid for the pension to the people that done it hard during the depression, it also help to paid for the veterans that fought in the first and second world wars to make as free. It also help to built public schools and hospital that you can use today. My taxes I paid back then when I was working, also paid for the roads that you are using today, not like today when they built a road the put a toll on it if you want to drive on it. So never come and said it is free money we have paid for it many times over, just think yourself lucky that we paid taxes and built all the infrastructure that you are using today.

So don't ever come on here and tell me to get a job and paid some taxes. I think I have paid my fair share of taxes over the years can you say the same.

I know the liberal party wants people to work until they are 70 but guess what I am over 70

mariacostel wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 7:30am:

How about we INCREASE the voting age to 25? There goes half the Green vote an a percent of Labor's vote

Most Green voters are university educated and mature. Unlike conservative voters who tend to be Westy bogans. Your comments prove me correct, dear.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 7:30am:

How about we INCREASE the voting age to 25? There goes half the Green vote an a percent of Labor's vote

There's the other end. High rate of dementia rates helps explains the vote for the libs with older people.

---

Here's another effort by the Left to win more 'default' votes for their Party at election times.

Going way back, successive Australian governments have been tweaking the immigration streams to increase the number of people arriving who will be voting Labor or Liberal.

  Wow, those numbers are huge for over 70s. Maybe over 70s should provide a Dr certificate to prove they are not demented given a huge proportion of them have no f...y idea. No wonder the conservatives court the senior vote, a huge percentage of them don't know what they're doing.

BigOl64 wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 5:13am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 4:28am: I was not too interested in voting when I was 16 I find it impossible to give a f**ck at 51

hilarious!..

have they counted the informal votes lately... ;D ;D ;D ;D

why not make it 15....even 14... come on what difference is there in these [growing two heads years]...if the sheet is going to hit the fan its usually from the age of 14 to 18 ask any parent.. ::) ::)

maybe Billyboil hasnt got to that stage yet ;D ;D.

since when can you join the army at 16? news to me!

I am all for putting the voting age UP...when you look at the senate and the damage it is causing..  ::) ::) ::)... 30 would be a good start   ;D ;D ;D

skippy. wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 8:27am:

Wow, those numbers are huge for over 70s. Maybe over 70s should provide a Dr certificate to prove they are not demented given a huge proportion of them have no f...y idea. No wonder the conservatives court the senior vote, a huge percentage of them don't know what they're doing.

it wont be long skippy and you will find out should you be privileged to qualify to live that long.. ::) ::) it is a privilege to get old you know....

and no not everyones brains give out...as much as you like to claim....

dementia is not a disease of the OLD anymore.sadly it knows no barriers...

mariacostel wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 7:30am:

How about we INCREASE the voting age to 25? There goes half the Green vote an a percent of Labor's vote

Love it!

And no immigrants or refugees to vote for at least the first 10 years of residency.

And to be brutally honest - no Women's Vote until at very least 40 years of age.

Women are nurturing creatures with sob-sister tendencies whose intelligence and grasp of reality crumbles and melts away whenever their gender-instincts finds yet another 'victim' to champion and defend against those brutish male realists who want to turn back boats, and who do not fall for the blackmail of sewn lips in Detention Centres - or 'Children Overboard' stunts.

Women under 40 should be allowed to vote but only if they can get 5 men who are not relatives to sign a consent form that the woman is not an air-head full of Women's Magazine and Midday Soapies bullshit ..

She qualifies if she ...

1. Buys and reads newspapers ... (this already eliminates at least 90% of women).

2. Is not a women who began her 'Single Motherhood' while any of her children were still under age 5.

3. Is not over-weight by the age of 30.

4. Doesn't wear thongs - or tattoos where you can see it/them, or any kind of facial bolt, ring, or pin.

5. Doesn't have a boyfriend or husband who looks like a typical idiot of the latest two or three generations.

6. Is in a profession.

etc



   

To me this is no big deal, don't care if they do - don't care if they don't.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 8:55am:

To me this is no big deal, don't care if they do - don't care if they don't.

Thanks for your confession to being .... (fill in the dots).

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 8:58am:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 8:55am: To me this is no big deal, don't care if they do - don't care if they don't. Thanks for your confession to being .... (fill in the dots).

a person with a balanced view on the nothing topic.

skippy. wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 8:27am:

Wow, those numbers are huge for over 70s. Maybe over 70s should provide a Dr certificate to prove they are not demented given a huge proportion of them have no f...y idea. No wonder the conservatives court the senior vote, a huge percentage of them don't know what they're doing.

;)

mariacostel wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 7:30am:

How about we INCREASE the voting age to 25? There goes half the Green vote an a percent of Labor's vote

Once again your pro-Coalition bias makes you post ridiculous crap.

cods wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 8:51am:

skippy. wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 8:27am:   Wow, those numbers are huge for over 70s. Maybe over 70s should provide a Dr certificate to prove they are not demented given a huge proportion of them have no f...y idea. No wonder the conservatives court the senior vote, a huge percentage of them don't know what they're doing. it wont be long skippy and you will find out should you be privileged to qualify to live that long.. ::) ::) it is a privilege to get old you know....

It's not a privilege, cods. It's an achievement.


Quote:

and no not everyones brains give out...as much as you like to claim.... dementia is not a disease of the OLD anymore.sadly it knows no barriers...

Terry Pratchett RIP.

BigOl64 wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 5:10am:

____ wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 2:54am: CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE Coordinated Youth Policy Lower voting age to 16 Children and young people must have greater opportunities to participate in decision making affecting their lives. http://greens.org.au/policies/children-young-people Meanwhile Labor will look at dropping voting age to 16, says Bill Shorten They can serve in the army, get a gun licence, drive a car, fly a plane and even leave home, but there's one thing no 16 or 17-year-old in Australia can do - yet - and that's vote in a federal election. But Opposition Leader Bill Shorten wants that to change that and in a speech on Saturday to a young Labor Party conference in Sydney, he will outline a plan to enfranchise an estimated half a million voters if the ALP is elected. The ambitious proposal is designed to galvanise interest in politics among younger Australians and comes as 400,000 Australians aged 18-24 did not enrol to vote between 2010 and 2013. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labor-will-look-at-dropping-voting-age-to-16-says-bill-shorten-20151030-gkmy9o.html Seems labor is in panic mode over it's inability to attracted young people into old labor. Like most socialists, he knows very little about serving in the ADF, you can not serve in the ADF at 16 - 17 without your parents permission. Maybe you should only be allowed to vote under those conditions too, if you want it to be like servig your country. Friggen numpties.

I'm not sure why you're getting your panties in a knot again ... you even agreed that one can serve in the defense forces at 16 and 17?
Where did he say anything to the contrary?

Its time wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 9:10am:

skippy. wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 8:27am:   Wow, those numbers are huge for over 70s. Maybe over 70s should provide a Dr certificate to prove they are not demented given a huge proportion of them have no f...y idea. No wonder the conservatives court the senior vote, a huge percentage of them don't know what they're doing. ;)

agree ....

Bam wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 9:14am:

cods wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 8:51am: skippy. wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 8:27am:   Wow, those numbers are huge for over 70s. Maybe over 70s should provide a Dr certificate to prove they are not demented given a huge proportion of them have no f...y idea. No wonder the conservatives court the senior vote, a huge percentage of them don't know what they're doing. it wont be long skippy and you will find out should you be privileged to qualify to live that long.. ::) ::) it is a privilege to get old you know.... It's not a privilege, cods. It's an achievement. well I dunno what I achieved to get where I am.. all I know is there are many out there that will never reach what is called OLD AGE..and that I find tough....so why put down anyone that does get to a RIPE OLD AGE...what wrong with it????... why disparage and make fun of someones age???....as if they themselves swill never get there... ::)lucky me I dont know of anyone with dementia..and have never had to live with it....but I do know it isnt something to be mocked and made fun of.. >:( >:( Quote: and no not everyones brains give out...as much as you like to claim.... dementia is not a disease of the OLD anymore.sadly it knows no barriers... Terry Pratchett RIP.

yes I read where a lady in her 30s is stricken with it...its a terrible thing..

skippy. wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 8:27am:

Wow, those numbers are huge for over 70s. Maybe over 70s should provide a Dr certificate to prove they are not demented given a huge proportion of them have no f...y idea. No wonder the conservatives court the senior vote, a huge percentage of them don't know what they're doing.

;D ;D ;D

skippy. wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 8:15am:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 7:30am: How about we INCREASE the voting age to 25? There goes half the Green vote an a percent of Labor's vote Most Green voters are university educated and mature. Unlike conservative voters who tend to be Westy bogans. Your comments prove me correct, dear.

Then they grow up, get older, experience more of the world and ditch Green politics in support of more central and right-wing causes. it is hard to find a Liberal in a university. It is equally hard to find a Green among successful business men either.

Bam wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 9:11am:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 7:30am: How about we INCREASE the voting age to 25? There goes half the Green vote an a percent of Labor's vote Once again your pro-Coalition bias makes you post ridiculous crap.

And you think the idea of dropping the voting age is out of principle? Greens and Labor both know that it plays to their electoral advantage. At least have the honesty to understand that.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 10:24am:

Bam wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 9:11am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 7:30am: How about we INCREASE the voting age to 25? There goes half the Green vote an a percent of Labor's vote Once again your pro-Coalition bias makes you post ridiculous crap. And you think the idea of dropping the voting age is out of principle? Greens and Labor both know that it plays to their electoral advantage. At least have the honesty to understand that.

I bet you would of said in 1972 when McMahon brought legislation into parliament to drop the voting age to 18 that is was advantage to the liberal party

skippy. wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 8:27am:

Wow, those numbers are huge for over 70s. Maybe over 70s should provide a Dr certificate to prove they are not demented given a huge proportion of them have no f...y idea. No wonder the conservatives court the senior vote, a huge percentage of them don't know what they're doing.

Worse than that, Skip. The Libs go out to retirement homes and give them postal votes that they fill out. All very noble. Illegal. The return address is Lib Party Head Office instead of the local AEC office. HM postal votes from nursing and retirement homes are actually made by Lib Head Office?

Libs—corrupt to the bone.

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 10:53am:

skippy. wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 8:27am:   Wow, those numbers are huge for over 70s. Maybe over 70s should provide a Dr certificate to prove they are not demented given a huge proportion of them have no f...y idea. No wonder the conservatives court the senior vote, a huge percentage of them don't know what they're doing. Worse than that, Skip. The Libs go out to retirement homes and give them postal votes that they fill out. All very noble. Illegal. The return address is Lib Party Head Office instead of the local AEC office. HM postal votes from nursing and retirement homes are actually made by Lib Head Office? Libs—corrupt to the bone.

I am a silent voter and I get junk mail from my local liberal member, which I think everyone would, ever election to fill out for a postal vote and one of the reason is being a silent voter with a pre-paid address to the the local member electoral office.

What I do is tick the silent voter box I don't fill out my name or address and put a old labor party how to vote paper in it from the last election and send it back to them.

Just think what would happen if everyone done it even if they don't need a postal vote

Labor voter wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 10:49am:

I bet you would of said in 1972 when McMahon brought legislation into parliament to drop the voting age to 18 that is was advantage to the liberal party

1972 - Vietnam War - Conscription age 20- Would it have been an advantage?

mariacostel wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 10:24am:

Bam wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 9:11am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 7:30am: How about we INCREASE the voting age to 25? There goes half the Green vote an a percent of Labor's vote Once again your pro-Coalition bias makes you post ridiculous crap. And you think the idea of dropping the voting age is out of principle? Greens and Labor both know that it plays to their electoral advantage. At least have the honesty to understand that.

Didn't the numbers say that it made no difference to Labor and an almost imperceptible change to the Libs and greens.

A 0.2 % change overall can be swallowed up by a single snappy 3 word line (stop the boats). Anybody thinking they would get an advantage out of this could easily find themselves on the wrong end of the count come election day.

lee wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 11:30am:

Labor voter wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 10:49am: I bet you would of said in 1972 when McMahon brought legislation into parliament to drop the voting age to 18 that is was advantage to the liberal party 1972 - Vietnam War - Conscription age 20- Would it have been an advantage?

If you were in the defence forces back then and you were between the ages of 18 and 21 you could vote in federal elections, I think the Gorton brought that in. McMahon brought legislation into the parliament for all 18 to 21 yo to vote but wouldn't give to the GG  for Royal Assent

I wonder how 16 and 17 years old of Aust feels about this

http://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/voting_australia.htm

After each election, the AEC will send a letter to all apparent non-voters requesting that they either provide a valid and sufficient reason for failing to vote or pay a $20 penalty.

If, within the time period specified on the notice, you fail to reply, cannot provide a valid and sufficient reason or decline to pay the $20 penalty, then the matter may be referred to a court. If the matter is dealt with in court and you are found guilty, you may be fined up to $170 plus court costs and a criminal conviction may be recorded against you

Labor voter wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 12:03pm:

If you were in the defence forces back then

I was a nasho back then.

cods wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 9:31am:

Bam wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 9:14am: cods wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 8:51am: skippy. wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 8:27am:   Wow, those numbers are huge for over 70s. Maybe over 70s should provide a Dr certificate to prove they are not demented given a huge proportion of them have no f...y idea. No wonder the conservatives court the senior vote, a huge percentage of them don't know what they're doing. it wont be long skippy and you will find out should you be privileged to qualify to live that long.. ::) ::) it is a privilege to get old you know.... It's not a privilege, cods. It's an achievement. well I dunno what I achieved to get where I am.. all I know is there are many out there that will never reach what is called OLD AGE..and that I find tough....so why put down anyone that does get to a RIPE OLD AGE...what wrong with it????... why disparage and make fun of someones age???....as if they themselves swill never get there... ::)lucky me I dont know of anyone with dementia..and have never had to live with it....but I do know it isnt something to be mocked and made fun of.. >:( >:(

I'm neither mocking you, making fun of your age, nor am I putting you down in any way. IMO it is an achievement to grow old because someone who is old has got there by looking after themselves. Not everyone grows old, and those who do so should be respected.

I simply did not agree with your characterisation of growing old as a privilege because I thought that description to be imprecise. Privileges can be given or taken by other people, achievements cannot because they are products of one's own efforts. Growing old may not be as active an achievement as baking a cake from raw ingredients, climbing a mountain or becoming the CEO of a major company, but it is an achievement nonetheless.

Australian society does not respect the elderly enough. Japan has a public holiday called "Respect for the Aged Day" on the 3rd Monday in September. I don't think we need a public holiday, but we should have a Sunday every year like Mothers' Day or Fathers' Day where we can think more about our elderly relatives.

"Do not regret growing older. It is a privilege denied to many." - source unknown

The left would like to get the votes from the young before they leave school and forget their indoctrination.

It matters little to the power-hungry & corrupt manipulators of the left that serious decisions are put at the disposal of minds not yet properly matured and which have not been subject to sufficient life experience.

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 10:53am:

skippy. wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 8:27am:   Wow, those numbers are huge for over 70s. Maybe over 70s should provide a Dr certificate to prove they are not demented given a huge proportion of them have no f...y idea. No wonder the conservatives court the senior vote, a huge percentage of them don't know what they're doing. Worse than that, Skip. The Libs go out to retirement homes and give them postal votes that they fill out. All very noble. Illegal. The return address is Lib Party Head Office instead of the local AEC office. HM postal votes from nursing and retirement homes are actually made by Lib Head Office? Libs—corrupt to the bone.

Do you have any evidence for this or are you just making it up like you do in your various NBN whinge-fest threads.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 11:57am:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 10:24am: Bam wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 9:11am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 7:30am: How about we INCREASE the voting age to 25? There goes half the Green vote an a percent of Labor's vote Once again your pro-Coalition bias makes you post ridiculous crap. And you think the idea of dropping the voting age is out of principle? Greens and Labor both know that it plays to their electoral advantage. At least have the honesty to understand that. Didn't the numbers say that it made no difference to Labor and an almost imperceptible change to the Libs and greens. A 0.2 % change overall can be swallowed up by a single snappy 3 word line (stop the boats). Anybody thinking they would get an advantage out of this could easily find themselves on the wrong end of the count come election day.

.2% was more than the margin in 2010. any number of electorates have been won or lost on less than that.

So what is wrong with raising the age to 21 or even 25?

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 1:46pm:

The left would like to get the votes from the young before they leave school and forget their indoctrination. It matters little to the power-hungry & corrupt manipulators of the left that serious decisions are put at the disposal of minds not yet properly matured and which have not been subject to sufficient life experience.

most 16 year olds are still in SCHOOL... what the hell would they know about life and expectations... its all cars.. sex as far as i can make out today...like brown shortarse is beside himself and doesnt have a clue how to get more votes  to keep him in his very safe seat...[job].they are a joke.. would anyone in their right mind give their 16 yr old the family  budget to spend each week..

well maybe shortarse would... ;D ;D ;D

____ wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 5:21am:

BigOl64 wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 5:10am: ____ wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 2:54am: CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE Coordinated Youth Policy Lower voting age to 16 Children and young people must have greater opportunities to participate in decision making affecting their lives. http://greens.org.au/policies/children-young-people Meanwhile Labor will look at dropping voting age to 16, says Bill Shorten They can serve in the army, get a gun licence, drive a car, fly a plane and even leave home, but there's one thing no 16 or 17-year-old in Australia can do - yet - and that's vote in a federal election. But Opposition Leader Bill Shorten wants that to change that and in a speech on Saturday to a young Labor Party conference in Sydney, he will outline a plan to enfranchise an estimated half a million voters if the ALP is elected. The ambitious proposal is designed to galvanise interest in politics among younger Australians and comes as 400,000 Australians aged 18-24 did not enrol to vote between 2010 and 2013. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labor-will-look-at-dropping-voting-age-to-16-says-bill-shorten-20151030-gkmy9o.html Seems labor is in panic mode over it's inability to attracted young people into old labor. Like most socialists, he knows very little about serving in the ADF, you can not serve in the ADF at 16 - 17 without your parents permission. Maybe you should only be allowed to vote under those conditions too, if you want it to be like servig your country. Friggen numpties. The 16 years olds who are independent and not living at home. Why should they ask permission?

So some numpty 16 yr old wants to play army and you're happy to send the little snowflake off to war because  he thinks a uniform would be cool. It is the law lain and simple you don't enlist by yourself until you're 18.

Voting is a total waste of time and makes very little difference to your reality. I doubt the youngsters would give a sh1t at 16 when 400000 of the 18 yr old little darlings didn't give a sh1t at the last election.

I engage with teenagers a lot, you would be surprised how politically aware teenagers are these days, in fact far more aware than your average adult (and even people in this thread).

What does your average person know about politics? They know the main parties name, they know some politicians (generally the leaders) and they know what they hear and see in their peripherals through the media and only care about "muh taxes/rates".

If we excluded people on their knowledge of politics, 80% of voters wouldn't be allowed to vote and all that would be left is a handful of Labor voters and the Greens demographic.

There is no good reason to not drop the voting age to 16, a huge portion of people at that age are paying tax anyway.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 3:54pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 11:57am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 10:24am: Bam wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 9:11am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 7:30am: How about we INCREASE the voting age to 25? There goes half the Green vote an a percent of Labor's vote Once again your pro-Coalition bias makes you post ridiculous crap. And you think the idea of dropping the voting age is out of principle? Greens and Labor both know that it plays to their electoral advantage. At least have the honesty to understand that. Didn't the numbers say that it made no difference to Labor and an almost imperceptible change to the Libs and greens. A 0.2 % change overall can be swallowed up by a single snappy 3 word line (stop the boats). Anybody thinking they would get an advantage out of this could easily find themselves on the wrong end of the count come election day. .2% was more than the margin in 2010. any number of electorates have been won or lost on less than that. So what is wrong with raising the age to 21 or even 25?

Yet they still change boundaries etc ?

It is a guestimated 0.2% variation - not a real one, it could easily go the other way as it did when the conservatives introduced compulsory voting thinking they would get the advantage.

John Smith wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 9:19am:

BigOl64 wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 5:10am: ____ wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 2:54am: CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE Coordinated Youth Policy Lower voting age to 16 Children and young people must have greater opportunities to participate in decision making affecting their lives. http://greens.org.au/policies/children-young-people Meanwhile Labor will look at dropping voting age to 16, says Bill Shorten They can serve in the army, get a gun licence, drive a car, fly a plane and even leave home, but there's one thing no 16 or 17-year-old in Australia can do - yet - and that's vote in a federal election. But Opposition Leader Bill Shorten wants that to change that and in a speech on Saturday to a young Labor Party conference in Sydney, he will outline a plan to enfranchise an estimated half a million voters if the ALP is elected. The ambitious proposal is designed to galvanise interest in politics among younger Australians and comes as 400,000 Australians aged 18-24 did not enrol to vote between 2010 and 2013. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labor-will-look-at-dropping-voting-age-to-16-says-bill-shorten-20151030-gkmy9o.html Seems labor is in panic mode over it's inability to attracted young people into old labor. Like most socialists, he knows very little about serving in the ADF, you can not serve in the ADF at 16 - 17 without your parents permission. Maybe you should only be allowed to vote under those conditions too, if you want it to be like servig your country. Friggen numpties. I'm not sure why you're getting your panties in a knot again ... you even agreed that one can serve in the defense forces at 16 and 17? Where did he say anything to the contrary?

Most of the things are legal rights / privileges / obligations as is voting; enlisting at 16 - 17 is none of of those until mummy and daddy say you can. That is the difference, something you should know, even if bill numty does not.


Not that hard to find out.


http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/recruitment-centre/can-i-join/age-gender/

I reckon age ought be irrelevant to franchise.  The only criteria should be a sound knowledge of our political system and political heritage ~ Westminster/Separation of Powers/Rule of Law/rudiments of the Constitution.

There are people who post here whom I would disenfranchise on the grounds of political incompetence or ignorance.

Maqqa wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 12:18pm:

I wonder how 16 and 17 years old of Aust feels about this http://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/voting_australia.htm After each election, the AEC will send a letter to all apparent non-voters requesting that they either provide a valid and sufficient reason for failing to vote or pay a $20 penalty. If, within the time period specified on the notice, you fail to reply, cannot provide a valid and sufficient reason or decline to pay the $20 penalty, then the matter may be referred to a court. If the matter is dealt with in court and you are found guilty, you may be fined up to $170 plus court costs and a criminal conviction may be recorded against you

It's no biggy, I've never been fined in all the years Ive ignored the fkheads trying to bludge the $2 taxpayer contribution from me.

Kiron22 wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 3:59pm:

I engage with teenagers a lot, you would be surprised how politically aware teenagers are these days, in fact far more aware than your average adult (and even people in this thread). What does your average person know about politics? They know the main parties name, they know some politicians (generally the leaders) and they know what they hear and see in their peripherals through the media and only care about "muh taxes/rates". If we excluded people on their knowledge of politics, 80% of voters wouldn't be allowed to vote and all that would be left is a handful of Labor voters and the Greens demographic. There is no good reason to not drop the voting age to 16, a huge portion of people at that age are paying tax anyway.

If you are so 'engaged' then tell us what percentage of the 16-18 would ever vote Liberal?

Aussie wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 4:11pm:

I reckon age ought be irrelevant to franchise.  The only criteria should be a sound knowledge of our political system and political heritage ~ Westminster/Separation of Powers/Rule of Law/rudiments of the Constitution. There are people who post here whom I would disenfranchise on the grounds of political incompetence or ignorance.

What about dropping the legal age to be adult to 16 as well? What about the age of consent? Be consistent. What about making 16yos responsible for contracts?

If you want the vote then you take THE LOT.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 4:16pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 4:11pm: I reckon age ought be irrelevant to franchise.  The only criteria should be a sound knowledge of our political system and political heritage ~ Westminster/Separation of Powers/Rule of Law/rudiments of the Constitution. There are people who post here whom I would disenfranchise on the grounds of political incompetence or ignorance. What about dropping the legal age to be adult to 16 as well? What about the age of consent? Be consistent. What about making 16yos responsible for contracts? If you want the vote then you take THE LOT.

I reckon you ought re-read what I posted which suggested age irrelevance.

BigOl64 wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 5:13am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 4:28am: I was not too interested in voting when I was 16 I find it impossible to give a f**ck at 51

;D ;D ;D

mariacostel wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 4:15pm:

Kiron22 wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 3:59pm: I engage with teenagers a lot, you would be surprised how politically aware teenagers are these days, in fact far more aware than your average adult (and even people in this thread). What does your average person know about politics? They know the main parties name, they know some politicians (generally the leaders) and they know what they hear and see in their peripherals through the media and only care about "muh taxes/rates". If we excluded people on their knowledge of politics, 80% of voters wouldn't be allowed to vote and all that would be left is a handful of Labor voters and the Greens demographic. There is no good reason to not drop the voting age to 16, a huge portion of people at that age are paying tax anyway. If you are so 'engaged' then tell us what percentage of the 16-18 would ever vote Liberal?

Could that be the stupidest question ever asked on Ozpol?

Why ?

He Man wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 4:22pm:

Why ?

Its a trick question - no sane person would ever vote Liberal.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 4:26pm:

He Man wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 4:22pm: Why ? Its a trick question - no sane person would ever vote Liberal.

It was a trick question alright...  But none of you got it.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 4:16pm:

What about the age of consent?

Isn't that already 16, Maria? :D :D :D

Aussie wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 4:18pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 4:16pm: Aussie wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 4:11pm: I reckon age ought be irrelevant to franchise.  The only criteria should be a sound knowledge of our political system and political heritage ~ Westminster/Separation of Powers/Rule of Law/rudiments of the Constitution. There are people who post here whom I would disenfranchise on the grounds of political incompetence or ignorance. What about dropping the legal age to be adult to 16 as well? What about the age of consent? Be consistent. What about making 16yos responsible for contracts? If you want the vote then you take THE LOT. I reckon you ought re-read what I posted which suggested age irrelevance.

funny I could have sworn the thread was about AGE... ::)

no ....OK.





you know I know a few people who have trouble getting their 16year olds out of bed... ::) ::) ::) and if you live near a beach...welllllllllllllllllllllllllll

Dnarever wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 4:26pm:

He Man wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 4:22pm: Why ? Its a trick question - no sane person would ever vote Liberal.

Oh sorry I never realized that you were from the looney left spitting vitriol everywhere.

By your standards most of australia must be insane then and your little band of merry leftards are not insane. Hmmm Oooo Kayyyy :D :D :D

cods wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 5:15pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 4:18pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 4:16pm: Aussie wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 4:11pm: I reckon age ought be irrelevant to franchise.  The only criteria should be a sound knowledge of our political system and political heritage ~ Westminster/Separation of Powers/Rule of Law/rudiments of the Constitution. There are people who post here whom I would disenfranchise on the grounds of political incompetence or ignorance. What about dropping the legal age to be adult to 16 as well? What about the age of consent? Be consistent. What about making 16yos responsible for contracts? If you want the vote then you take THE LOT. I reckon you ought re-read what I posted which suggested age irrelevance. funny I could have sworn the thread was about AGE... ::) no ....OK. you know I know a few people who have trouble getting their 16year olds out of bed... ::) ::) ::) and if you live near a beach...welllllllllllllllllllllllllll

...and I said that age ought be irrelevant to franchise....as explained in my post.

John Smith wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 5:09pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 4:16pm: What about the age of consent? Isn't that already 16, Maria? :D :D :D

It depends on what state. However, in an situation involving an authority figure it is always 18.

Q) Should we Lower The Voting Age To 16?

A) No!

mariacostel wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 6:41pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 5:09pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 4:16pm: What about the age of consent? Isn't that already 16, Maria? :D :D :D It depends on what state. However, in an situation involving an authority figure it is always 18.

Rubbish.  The age of consent is 16 in all States except SA and Tas where it is 17.........irrespective of the age of the rooter.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 4:15pm:

Kiron22 wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 3:59pm: I engage with teenagers a lot, you would be surprised how politically aware teenagers are these days, in fact far more aware than your average adult (and even people in this thread). What does your average person know about politics? They know the main parties name, they know some politicians (generally the leaders) and they know what they hear and see in their peripherals through the media and only care about "muh taxes/rates". If we excluded people on their knowledge of politics, 80% of voters wouldn't be allowed to vote and all that would be left is a handful of Labor voters and the Greens demographic. There is no good reason to not drop the voting age to 16, a huge portion of people at that age are paying tax anyway. If you are so 'engaged' then tell us what percentage of the 16-18 would ever vote Liberal?

None, because truly politically engaged people don't vote Liberal, the vast majority of the Liberal party is made up of old, disgruntled boomers.

Young people don't vote Liberal because the Liberals don't serve young interests at all, Libs pander to the older demographic who dominate population demographics in Australia with cheap, short term, vote buying. The fact Australia has a quickly aging population in itself is a good reason to lower voting age.

I mean FFS, the Libs won the last election with flat out zero policy. Anyone truly politically engaged could not vote for a party that doesn't even have a policy platform.

perceptions_now wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 6:50pm:

Q) Should we Lower The Voting Age To 16? A) No!

Ditto!

Aussie wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 6:53pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 6:41pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 5:09pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 4:16pm: What about the age of consent? Isn't that already 16, Maria? :D :D :D It depends on what state. However, in an situation involving an authority figure it is always 18. Rubbish.  The age of consent is 16 in all States except SA and Tas where it is 17.........irrespective of the age of the rooter.

Some lawyer you are!  If one of them is 'someone in authority' eg a teach, scout leader, minister priest or the same, the age is 18 and has been for a very long time.  There is also a 'restricted age of consent' which you seem equally unaware of which can be as low as 12 as long as both parties vary in age by no more than 2 years.

And I didn't need to google that as you will need to.

Maria meant a particular kind of consent, dontcha know.

TROLL

mariacostel wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 6:59pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 6:53pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 6:41pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 5:09pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 4:16pm: What about the age of consent? Isn't that already 16, Maria? :D :D :D It depends on what state. However, in an situation involving an authority figure it is always 18. Rubbish.  The age of consent is 16 in all States except SA and Tas where it is 17.........irrespective of the age of the rooter. Some lawyer you are!  If one of them is 'someone in authority' eg a teach, scout leader, minister priest or the same, the age is 18 and has been for a very long time.  There is also a 'restricted age of consent' which you seem equally unaware of which can be as low as 12 as long as both parties vary in age by no more than 2 years. And I didn't need to google that as you will need to.

Maria is correct. https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/age-consent-laws


Quote:

The legal age for consensual sex varies across Australian state and territory jurisdictions (see Table 1). The age of consent is 16 years of age in the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Northern Territory, Victoria and Western Australia. In Tasmania and South Australia the age of consent is 17 years of age. Queensland is the only state that makes a distinction between different forms of sexual activity and the age of consent. In Queensland, the age of consent for anal sex (referred to as sodomy in legislation) is 18 years of age, while the age of consent for all other sexual behaviour (described as carnal knowledge) is 16 years of age.

Quote:

If a person is accused of engaging in sexual behaviour with someone under the legal age, there are various statutory defences available, which are outlined in legislation. While legislation varies in each state and territory, in general two types of defences are available (Cameron, 2007). The first type relates to whether the accused believed on reasonable grounds that the person with whom they engaged in sexual behaviour was above the legal age of consent. All jurisdictions (except New South Wales) have provisions for this defence in legislation; however, several variations exist regarding restrictions on the use of the defence according to the age of the alleged victim. The defence cannot be used if the victim was 10 years or younger at the time of the alleged offence in the Australian Capital Territory, 12 years or younger in Queensland and Victoria, 13 years or younger in Western Australia, 14 years or younger in the Northern Territory, and 16 years or younger in South Australia. The second statutory defence relates to situations in which the two people are close in age. In Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory, engaging in sexual behaviour under the legal age can be defended if the defendant was not more than 2 years older, and in Western Australia not more than 3 years older, than the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed. In Tasmania it is a defence if the child is 15 years of age and the accused person was not more than 5 years older than the child, or if the child was above 12 years of age and the accused person was not more than 3 years older than the child. Details for other states can be found in Table 2. In Victoria and Western Australia there is legal provision for defence if the accused can demonstrate they are lawfully married to the child. In Queensland, there are separate legal defences in the legislation relating to unlawful sodomy.

Quote:

Although the legal age of consent throughout Australia is either 16 or 17 years of age, legislation in New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory makes it an offence for a person in a supervisory role to sexually engage with a person under their special care who is aged 16 or 17 years. A person in a supervisory role providing "special care" may include: a teacher, foster parent, religious official or spiritual leader, a medical practitioner, an employer of the child or a custodial official. For further information regarding sexual interaction with 16 and 17 years old under special care please see the relevant state or territory legislation.

Quote:

the age is 18 and has been for a very long time.

Link.

Neferti wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 7:12pm:

Maria is correct

No, she literally engaged in moving the goalposts fallacy.

Age of consent is 16 except in certain circumstances.

Kiron22 wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 7:20pm:

Neferti wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 7:12pm: Maria is correct No, she literally engaged in moving the goalposts fallacy. Age of consent is 16 except in certain circumstances.

that's how I read it too!

John Smith wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 8:05pm:

Kiron22 wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 7:20pm: Neferti wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 7:12pm: Maria is correct No, she literally engaged in moving the goalposts fallacy. Age of consent is 16 except in certain circumstances. that's how I read it too!

It is the only way to read it.  "Maria," as usual, is posting crap.

John Smith wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 8:05pm:

Kiron22 wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 7:20pm: Neferti wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 7:12pm: Maria is correct No, she literally engaged in moving the goalposts fallacy. Age of consent is 16 except in certain circumstances. that's how I read it too!

No no. Maria meant a specific kind of consent. That being the consent between a person in authority and the young person.

It's just that we're all too stupid and uneducated with dreadful debating skills that we didn't immediately know that that is what she was specifically referring to.

mothra wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 8:08pm:

No no. Maria meant a specific kind of consent. That being the consent between a person in authority and the young person.

of course ... we should have known that

afterall,  the thread is about allowing 16 yr olds to vote unless they're voting for a person in authority  :D :D :D :D

Only an ignorant dummy would think 'age of consent' is just a single age in all circumstances.  I forget sometimes that I need to literally spoon feed you all the details on this or any other topic since you are so appallingly ignorant of the details.

Lowering The Voting Age To 16

As stated before I don't care either way

Given the option I would vote no leave it where it is, I don't think it would make much if any difference to election outcomes and we should not be making changes for that reason anyway.

I doubt that the vast majority of 16 year olds would want to vote or are ready for the responsibility. I know that I struggled with the concept as an unprepared 18 year old.

The only advantage could be that a civics course to prepare young people to vote in a voting year may be of benefit if it were carried out in a honest manner.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 6:51am:

Lowering The Voting Age To 16 As stated before I don't care either way Given the option I would vote no leave it where it is, I don't think it would make much if any difference to election outcomes and we should not be making changes for that reason anyway. I doubt that the vast majority of 16 year olds would want to vote or are ready for the responsibility. I know that I struggled with the concept as an unprepared 18 year old. The only advantage could be that a civics course to prepare young people to vote in a voting year may be of benefit if it were carried out in a honest manner.

Where schools (public at least) are hotbeds of left-wing activism, what is the chance of that?

mariacostel wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 8:01am:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 6:51am: Lowering The Voting Age To 16 As stated before I don't care either way Given the option I would vote no leave it where it is, I don't think it would make much if any difference to election outcomes and we should not be making changes for that reason anyway. I doubt that the vast majority of 16 year olds would want to vote or are ready for the responsibility. I know that I struggled with the concept as an unprepared 18 year old. The only advantage could be that a civics course to prepare young people to vote in a voting year may be of benefit if it were carried out in a honest manner. Where schools (public at least) are hotbeds of left-wing activism, what is the chance of that?

What a load of unmitigated crap!

Where DO you pull these stupid claims from?

Your ass?

Young people don't vote for Libs (Because the Libs have policies that outright show they despise youth) makes them left wing radical communist fifth column insurgents.

Kat wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 8:17am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 8:01am: Where schools (public at least) are hotbeds of left-wing activism, what is the chance of that? What a load of unmitigated crap! Where DO you pull these stupid claims from? Your ass?

That is his opinion

lets see him/her prove that schools (public at least) are hotbeds of left-wing activism

Well to be fair, the Socialist Alternative exist only on Uni campuses (but are despised by 98% of people including most Socialists  ;D)

I'm a dirty red and bugger the SAlt.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 6:33am:

Only an ignorant dummy would think 'age of consent' is just a single age in all circumstances.  I forget sometimes that I need to literally spoon feed you all the details on this or any other topic since you are so appallingly ignorant of the details.

only an idiot would, when asked the rule, quote the exception to the general rule rather than quote the general rule that applies to most cases.

Labor voter wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 8:23am:

lets see him/her prove that schools (public at least) are hotbeds of left-wing activism

you might be waiting a while .. Maria likes making dumb comments that she then runs away from

mariacostel wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 8:01am:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 6:51am: Lowering The Voting Age To 16 As stated before I don't care either way Given the option I would vote no leave it where it is, I don't think it would make much if any difference to election outcomes and we should not be making changes for that reason anyway. I doubt that the vast majority of 16 year olds would want to vote or are ready for the responsibility. I know that I struggled with the concept as an unprepared 18 year old. The only advantage could be that a civics course to prepare young people to vote in a voting year may be of benefit if it were carried out in a honest manner. Where schools (public at least) are hotbeds of left-wing activism, what is the chance of that?

Yes the expected dubious claims of bias.

It would very much depend on who gave the training. I would think a balanced curricular set out in an unbiased manner would do the trick however logically the training could be managed by teachers from the History area which may suggest bias or the economics stream which would put bias in the other direction. Maybe even an external neutral training source could be engaged. 

Labor voter wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 8:23am:

Kat wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 8:17am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 8:01am: Where schools (public at least) are hotbeds of left-wing activism, what is the chance of that? What a load of unmitigated crap! Where DO you pull these stupid claims from? Your ass? That is his opinion lets see him/her prove that schools (public at least) are hotbeds of left-wing activism

Longies style is that you have to prove his her its opinion wrong  ::)

What has the age of consent got to do with anything ?

Everyone is old enough to be F**ked by government.

Kat wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 8:17am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 8:01am: Dnarever wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 6:51am: Lowering The Voting Age To 16 As stated before I don't care either way Given the option I would vote no leave it where it is, I don't think it would make much if any difference to election outcomes and we should not be making changes for that reason anyway. I doubt that the vast majority of 16 year olds would want to vote or are ready for the responsibility. I know that I struggled with the concept as an unprepared 18 year old. The only advantage could be that a civics course to prepare young people to vote in a voting year may be of benefit if it were carried out in a honest manner. Where schools (public at least) are hotbeds of left-wing activism, what is the chance of that? What a load of unmitigated crap! Where DO you pull these stupid claims from? Your ass?

The fact you disagree is part of the evidence that it is true.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 9:04am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 8:01am: Dnarever wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 6:51am: Lowering The Voting Age To 16 As stated before I don't care either way Given the option I would vote no leave it where it is, I don't think it would make much if any difference to election outcomes and we should not be making changes for that reason anyway. I doubt that the vast majority of 16 year olds would want to vote or are ready for the responsibility. I know that I struggled with the concept as an unprepared 18 year old. The only advantage could be that a civics course to prepare young people to vote in a voting year may be of benefit if it were carried out in a honest manner. Where schools (public at least) are hotbeds of left-wing activism, what is the chance of that? Yes the expected dubious claims of bias. It would very much depend on who gave the training. I would think a balanced curricular set out in an unbiased manner would do the trick however logically the training could be managed by teachers from the History area which may suggest bias or the economics stream which would put bias in the other direction. Maybe even an external neutral training source could be engaged.

Or maybe avoid the problem entirely by leaving it at 18 as it is already.

Not fair to leave it at 18.

Quickly aging population + Boomers already dominating the polls means youth have little to no representation in Government.

The fact that Governance is so clearly skewed to pandering to Boomers and f**king Gen Y and Millennials shows there needs to be voting reform.

Lib voters/boomers only are opposed to this reform because it hinders the absolute boomer/late "Howards Battlers" Gen X dominance of voting demographics.

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 12:33pm:

Not fair to leave it at 18. Quickly aging population + Boomers already dominating the polls means youth have little to no representation in Government. The fact that Governance is so clearly skewed to pandering to Boomers and f**king Gen Y and Millennials shows there needs to be voting reform. Lib voters/boomers only are opposed to this reform because it hinders the absolute boomer/late "Howards Battlers" Gen X dominance of voting demographics.

;D ;D You will get to vote when you turn 18

I don't feel 16 year olds are mature enough to vote but what do I know? In the USA nonexistent people and the dead vote Democrat in every national  election.

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 12:33pm:

Not fair to leave it at 18. Quickly aging population + Boomers already dominating the polls means youth have little to no representation in Government. The fact that Governance is so clearly skewed to pandering to Boomers and f**king Gen Y and Millennials shows there needs to be voting reform. Lib voters/boomers only are opposed to this reform because it hinders the absolute boomer/late "Howards Battlers" Gen X dominance of voting demographics.

And you opposition to this is nothing more than your hatred of boomers and pretty much everyone else. Why not drop the voting age to 5 years old? 

Nice hyperbole response there Maria.

None of you have been able to articulately give a single reason why a 16 year old shouldn't be allowed to register and vote. 16 year olds are working, they are being taxed, its their future being carved up by Boomers/Late Gen X. Why shouldn't 16 year olds be allowed to vote? Oh right, because Liberals do absolutely zero for a youth vote, they actively use the youth as a punching bag for the vast majority of their "Tough on bludgers" reforms and the youth are the ones that are almost always on the receiving end of first cuts.

Again, elections are massively skewed to the boomer/Late Gen X demographic already, the youth vote needs reform to allow young people to have a voice. I would argue in fact there has been very little in budgets from Labor and Liberal that do much for anyone <30.


Quote:

your hatred of boomers and pretty much everyone else.

Oh because Boomers totally don't deserve the ire of younger generations.

Voting against climate change reform, ripping off the tax system for decades, skyrocketing housing prices, destruction of infrastructure, numerous budgets of boomer vote buying?

There's a reason Boomers are known across the western world as "The Selfish Generation".

And like you Maria of all people can talk of "hatred of everyone" when you specifically view everyone "below you" as subhuman. I honestly don't think I've been in contact with a more genuine fascist than you.

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 1:00pm:

16 year olds are working,

How many?

Old enough to work, old enough to vote. Doesn't matter how many.

Again, I fail to see any legitimate arguments against moving the age down to 16. Teens today are quite politically informed.

Also Teens who don't want to vote DON'T HAVE TO VOTE, everyone has the freedom to register when they wish.

;D ;DWHAT A CROCK OF CRAPP

But it wont be long and you mother and father will be dead along with your grand parents so you inherit the lot  >:( >:( What a plucking shame

I have literally no idea what you are sh*tposting about.

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 1:06pm:

Old enough to work, old enough to vote. Doesn't matter how many. Again, I fail to see any legitimate arguments against moving the age down to 16. Teens today are quite politically informed. Also Teens who don't want to vote DON'T HAVE TO VOTE, everyone has the freedom to register when they wish.

So when I worked and paid taxes at 15 I should have been allowed to vote, based on my tax status rather than my age and maturity?

How young is too young?


I agree that anyone not just teens, should be allowed to not vote; because that is what a right is; being forced to enrol and subsequently head to the polling booth is a joke, not a right.

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 1:11pm:

I have literally no idea what you are sh*tposting about.

That's easy to see! >:(

mariacostel wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 8:01am:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 6:51am: Lowering The Voting Age To 16 As stated before I don't care either way Given the option I would vote no leave it where it is, I don't think it would make much if any difference to election outcomes and we should not be making changes for that reason anyway. I doubt that the vast majority of 16 year olds would want to vote or are ready for the responsibility. I know that I struggled with the concept as an unprepared 18 year old. The only advantage could be that a civics course to prepare young people to vote in a voting year may be of benefit if it were carried out in a honest manner. Where schools (public at least) are hotbeds of left-wing activism, what is the chance of that?

80% or more of students could not tell you who the treasurer is or quote a single policy except maybe stop the boats.

The average person would just shake their head at your opinion on this one.

Not true at all, I engage with teenagers alot through work and social groups, they are very politically informed.

If you want to get rid of voting based on being politically informed, then 80% of people wouldn't be allowed to vote.

Also again a 16 year old would have to register to vote, so only the politically willing would register.

Again, I see no real legitimate arguments against this, there are also no solutions to Boomer dominance in the polls with a rapidly ageing population. 16 year olds should be allowed to vote on the sole grounds that youth representation is almost non-existent in Politics. Why should the future be decided by Boomers who only care to line their own pockets with investment properties from their super?

Also a lot of the legislation effects young people, but youth have little to no say. It will be the 16 year olds today burdened with Uni deregluation, why are they not allowed a voice? Why should boomers have a single smacking say on Uni deregulation when Boomers were shepherded though Uni for free?

So should they be able to sign contracts?

lee wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 2:09pm:

So should they be able to sign contracts?

They can quite happily sign employment contracts so why not?

Ughh - this poo again.  We need to more selective about who gets a vote, not less. 

If we wanted our country to function well, we should drop the following groups from the electoral eligibility:

retards
People over 85
People under 25
Those who own no land
Those who pay no tax, or tax under a certain threshold
Prisoners

But the powers that be will never let this happen - the more chaff there is on the electoral roll, the less they are held to account, and the harder it is for intelligent, discerning people to right the ship when it founders. 

mothra wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 2:21pm:

They can quite happily sign employment contracts so why not?

With or without parent/guardian approval?

lee wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 2:26pm:

mothra wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 2:21pm: They can quite happily sign employment contracts so why not? With or without parent/guardian approval?

They don't need a parent or guardian to sign an employment contract.

... wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 2:25pm:

Ughh - this poo again.  We need to more selective about who gets a vote, not less.  If we wanted our country to function well, we should drop the following groups from the electoral eligibility: retards People over 85 People under 25 Those who own no land Those who pay no tax, or tax under a certain threshold Prisoners

The 19th century called  ;D

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 2:36pm:

... wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 2:25pm: Ughh - this poo again.  We need to more selective about who gets a vote, not less.  If we wanted our country to function well, we should drop the following groups from the electoral eligibility: retards People over 85 People under 25 Those who own no land Those who pay no tax, or tax under a certain threshold Prisoners The 19th century called  ;D

How's the 21st century been going on the leadership front?

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 2:01pm:

Not true at all, I engage with teenagers alot through work and social groups, they are very politically informed. If you want to get rid of voting based on being politically informed, then 80% of people wouldn't be allowed to vote. Also again a 16 year old would have to register to vote, so only the politically willing would register. Again, I see no real legitimate arguments against this, there are also no solutions to Boomer dominance in the polls with a rapidly ageing population. 16 year olds should be allowed to vote on the sole grounds that youth representation is almost non-existent in Politics. Why should the future be decided by Boomers who only care to line their own pockets with investment properties from their super?

how about DRINKING  in a pub at 16...

driving a CAR at 16....

going to WAR at 16......

getting MARRIED at 16...

getting a MORTGAGE at 16...

just even taking responsibility for their own actions even ::) ::) ::)





I seem to remember a young Lib winning a seat in  Parliament I think he was 20 and the sneering from the  left was HUGE. ;D ;D ;D

mothra wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 2:33pm:

They don't need a parent or guardian to sign an employment contract.

They do need a parent/guardian signature to sign Workplace Agreement or Enterprise Agreement, until 18.

cods wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 2:48pm:

how about DRINKING  in a pub at 16...

Drinking age has nothing to do with voting, you can vote before you can drink in the US.


Quote:

driving a CAR at 16....

You can do that.


Quote:

going to WAR at 16......

You can do that


Quote:

getting MARRIED at 16...

You can do that


Quote:

getting a MORTGAGE at 16...

You can do that (again what does this have to do with voting)


Quote:

just even taking responsibility for their own actions even ::) ::) ::)

Many 16 year olds are independent, my SO was out of home by 15.


Quote:

I seem to remember a young Lib winning a seat in  Parliament I think he was 20 and the sneering from the  left was HUGE. ;D ;D ;D

Because he is a Young Liberal shithead who engaged in very legally dubious actions, not because he was 20.

... wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 2:38pm:

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 2:36pm: ... wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 2:25pm: Ughh - this poo again.  We need to more selective about who gets a vote, not less.  If we wanted our country to function well, we should drop the following groups from the electoral eligibility: retards People over 85 People under 25 Those who own no land Those who pay no tax, or tax under a certain threshold Prisoners The 19th century called  ;D How's the 21st century been going on the leadership front?

So lets go back to the extreme class stratification of the 19th century where only the rich have the vote  ::)

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 3:21pm:

Quote: going to WAR at 16...... You can do that

'AGE RANGE FOR RECRUITMENT
You can join the ADF at 17 but start your application earlier if you wish.

To apply for a career in the Navy, Army or Air Force you must be at least 16 years and 6 months old, though you can start thinking about a career in the ADF much earlier (see below).

The maximum age for recruitment varies greatly by role, and you'll find details in each individual job description on the Defence Jobs website. As a general rule you can join the ADF if you are between three and six years away from the Compulsory Retiring Age for a specific role.

RECRUITMENT OF MINORS
At this age you are a 'minor' so special conditions apply.

Your application must be voluntary, approved in writing by your parent or guardian, and accompanied by an original or certified copy of your full birth certificate.

The ADF abides by the spirit and intent of the Optional Protocol on the Rights of the Child on Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict. That means we will take all feasible measures to ensure that minors do not participate in hostilities; however there will be times when they may have to.'

http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/recruitment-centre/can-i-join/age-gender/

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 3:23pm:

... wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 2:38pm: Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 2:36pm: ... wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 2:25pm: Ughh - this poo again.  We need to more selective about who gets a vote, not less.  If we wanted our country to function well, we should drop the following groups from the electoral eligibility: retards People over 85 People under 25 Those who own no land Those who pay no tax, or tax under a certain threshold Prisoners The 19th century called  ;D How's the 21st century been going on the leadership front? So lets go back to the extreme class stratification of the 19th century where only the rich have the vote  ::)

We can't go back in time, nor replicate the exact climate of another time and place, so your dichotomy is useless.  But what we can do is set mistakes right.  But if theres one thing that's true of mistakes, it's that the more we compound them, the more damage they do.  We can only learn from them if we face up to them.

The number of times I have seen "worst PM ever" referring to leaders from just the last decade or 2 shows we're in a state of permanent disapproval.  If this is what we're getting, something is obviously wrong. 

lee wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 3:31pm:

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 3:21pm: Quote: going to WAR at 16...... You can do that 'AGE RANGE FOR RECRUITMENT You can join the ADF at 17 but start your application earlier if you wish. To apply for a career in the Navy, Army or Air Force you must be at least 16 years and 6 months old, though you can start thinking about a career in the ADF much earlier (see below). The maximum age for recruitment varies greatly by role, and you'll find details in each individual job description on the Defence Jobs website. As a general rule you can join the ADF if you are between three and six years away from the Compulsory Retiring Age for a specific role. RECRUITMENT OF MINORS At this age you are a 'minor' so special conditions apply. Your application must be voluntary, approved in writing by your parent or guardian, and accompanied by an original or certified copy of your full birth certificate. The ADF abides by the spirit and intent of the Optional Protocol on the Rights of the Child on Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict. That means we will take all feasible measures to ensure that minors do not participate in hostilities; however there will be times when they may have to.' http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/recruitment-centre/can-i-join/age-gender/

Okay wrong, but why does that matter anyway?

Again nothing you people are voting explains why 16 year olds should not have their voice heard (and again, I interact with young people all the time who are far more politically informed than the vast majority of adults I know) and none of you have proposed any solution to the boomer dominance of the polls and an aging population.

16 year olds should be given the choice to sign up and vote if they wish.

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 3:21pm:

Quote: going to WAR at 16...... You can do that

Yeah, nah, try 18.

You can enlist with your parents permission, but you can't be packed off to war before 18. At least not when I enlisted. (at 17)

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 3:46pm:

Again nothing you people are voting explains why 16 year olds should not have their voice heard (and again, I interact with young people all the time who are far more politically informed than the vast majority of adults I know) and none of you have proposed any solution to the boomer dominance of the polls and an aging population. 16 year olds should be given the choice to sign up and vote if they wish.

Same reason why 14 yr olds can't because, they're idiots.

Sh1t, 400 000 18 yr old didn't vote or enrol in the last election, why are 16 yr old so politically switched on and 18 yr olds are not?

The answer is they are not and once again, we don't change the law based on your personal experience or we would be in a very f...ked up place.

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 3:21pm:

Quote: getting a MORTGAGE at 16...

'In most cases, a minor can enter a contract and own a property, but the problem comes for the people on the other side of the contract as they can't enforce the contract if something goes wrong.

So anyone who enters a contract with a minor runs a greater risk that the child is not going to see it through. Unlike with an adult in a contract, the other party can't enforce the purchase or keep the deposit of the child.'

http://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/never-too-young-to-buy-property/story-e6frfmd0-1226275496776

So what lending institution is going to give a mortgage to a minor?

If we allowed people to vote on knowledge of politics, again the vast majority wouldn't be able to vote.

16 year old voting serves several things, it gets more young people to enroll, it improves demographic size for the youth vote and people are probably more likely to vote at 18-19 if they've had the choice since 16.

Either way I'm absolutely sick to death of Politics being a game of pandering to boomers or 30+ year olds with families. I'm just shy off 30 and like I have said, there is very little in budgets Gen Y.

The way the system is set up, someone 25 has nowhere near the representation of someone thats 65, how is that fair? Do you think they would have dared had a "6 month no welfare period" for people at 50-70? Dear god no because that would lose you an election instantly, yet apparently those 26 and under are subhuman or something and can just magically survive on nothing.

We have had several budgets from Labor and Liberal that have punished the youth simply because they are not a large voting demographic. Young people are the punching bag of the major parties.

Also another point on young not voting, why would the youth vote when no major parties appeal to them? There is massive dissatisfaction with the major parties with young people, this doesn't mean they aren't politically aware. Hell some of the post politically aware people I know to the point they have political youtube channels don't vote on principle for not supporting the system.

lee wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 4:07pm:

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 3:21pm: Quote: getting a MORTGAGE at 16... 'In most cases, a minor can enter a contract and own a property, but the problem comes for the people on the other side of the contract as they can't enforce the contract if something goes wrong. So anyone who enters a contract with a minor runs a greater risk that the child is not going to see it through. Unlike with an adult in a contract, the other party can't enforce the purchase or keep the deposit of the child.' http://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/never-too-young-to-buy-property/story-e6frfmd0-1226275496776 So what lending institution is going to give a mortgage to a minor?

Last time I looked, landed voting ended over 100 years ago.

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 4:09pm:

Last time I looked, landed voting ended over 100 years ago.

I was merely clarifying your post about minors getting a mortgage. Theoretically they can. Can't see it ever coming to fruition unless Mum and Dad sign as guarantors.

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 4:08pm:

Also another point on young not voting, why would the youth vote when no major parties appeal to them? There is massive dissatisfaction with the major parties with young people, this doesn't mean they aren't politically aware. Hell some of the post politically aware people I know to the point they have political youtube channels don't vote on principle for not supporting the system.

That doesn't only apply to young people.  Increasing the size of the electorate only makes change more difficult, which is why the trend is towards relaxing electoral requirements - it benefits the entrenched powers.  If you really want to smash the system, you don't willingly and blindly do its bidding and cement its power.

I think young people will be much more erratic voters than people give them credit for. Honestly most young voters will probably vote Green or if they are right wing, the LDP, shouldn't that give more diversity in Government?

Also as I have stated, there is a huge issue with no youth representation. So many cuts and attacks that have happened in recent years hit Youth the hardest because they can't cut the benefits of boomers. What can be done to solve this than to get more young people voting?

I dread what is going to happen in a decade when Boomers and old Gen X literally dwarf everyone before them.

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 4:20pm:

I think young people will be much more erratic voters than people give them credit for. Honestly most young voters will probably vote Green or if they are right wing, the LDP, shouldn't that give more diversity in Government? Also as I have stated, there is a huge issue with no youth representation. So many cuts and attacks that have happened in recent years hit Youth the hardest because they can't cut the benefits of boomers. What can be done to solve this than to get more young people voting? I dread what is going to happen in a decade when Boomers and old Gen X literally dwarf everyone before them.

You are aware that the government deferred retirement and superannuation access by a few of years for boomers and Gen Xers, not quite the 6 months dole deferment you are complaining about, but everyone gets screwed sooner or later.

Having a bunch of children voting won't help your situation at all, in fact Id be surprised whether they even give a sh1t.

Everyone gets screwed sooner or later I agree, its part of the globalist agenda of course, I remember banks and right wing economists crowing back in 2012 that Austalia must lower its "living standards" and people should get used to working longer and not retiring, of course they have started to phase that in and Welfare is being demolished.

Again though, the youth are generally the first thrown to the slaughter, look at TAFE deregulation, Uni deregulation, no welfare for 6 months (when young people likely have higher costs/no savings), cuts to education, destruction of NBN, no action on climate change.

All these hurt the young, and barely touch the boomers since they will be dead by 2050 when its estimated at current rates the middle east will literally be unlivable.

I think giving 16 year olds the choice to vote will increase political participation by young people because they will maybe at 18 have several years of politics already being part of their lives, some of your friends at 16 vote, its likely you will enroll to vote at the next election when your 19 because people are actually participating in politics around you.

Will many 16 year olds vote? I actually don't think so, but I would be surprised if there wasn't a huge rise in youth voting at the 18,19,20,21 bracket.

This is a snippet from The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics

It is one of the 5 golden rules of dictators.  The suggestion of (further) lowering the age to 16 is a brazen, textbook example.  If those people he is appealing to really were "politically savvy" they'd see this. 

---

Last time I looked we don't live in a dictatorship.

I'd encourage you to read that book.  It can be torrented if need be.

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 4:47pm:

Last time I looked we don't live in a dictatorship.

We do. We just don't have a dictator for life. They get replaced every so often.

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 1:06pm:

Old enough to work, old enough to vote. Doesn't matter how many. Again, I fail to see any legitimate arguments against moving the age down to 16. Teens today are quite politically informed. Also Teens who don't want to vote DON'T HAVE TO VOTE, everyone has the freedom to register when they wish.

You can work at 13 so why not have voting at 13?

mariacostel wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 5:38pm:

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 1:06pm: Old enough to work, old enough to vote. Doesn't matter how many. Again, I fail to see any legitimate arguments against moving the age down to 16. Teens today are quite politically informed. Also Teens who don't want to vote DON'T HAVE TO VOTE, everyone has the freedom to register when they wish. You can work at 13 so why not have voting at 13?

Indeed, why not, provided they have proven they have a proper understanding of 'political science.'

I believe the author of this study said only 1 in 10 people supported this idea

Bill "17%" Shorten thought he was onto a whiney

Maqqa wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 5:47pm:

I believe the author of this study said only 1 in 10 people supported this idea Bill "17%" Shorten thought he was onto a whiney

'Whiney?'

mariacostel wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 5:38pm:

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 1:06pm: Old enough to work, old enough to vote. Doesn't matter how many. Again, I fail to see any legitimate arguments against moving the age down to 16. Teens today are quite politically informed. Also Teens who don't want to vote DON'T HAVE TO VOTE, everyone has the freedom to register when they wish. You can work at 13 so why not have voting at 13?

14 I think you will find..

if you lower voting everything else has to follow suit...

imagine 16 years olds selling grog at liqorland....

because thats what it will be..

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 3:21pm:

cods wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 2:48pm: how about DRINKING  in a pub at 16... Drinking age has nothing to do with voting, you can vote before you can drink in the US. Quote: driving a CAR at 16.... You can do that. [quote] going to WAR at 16......

You can do that


Quote:

getting MARRIED at 16...

You can do that


Quote:

getting a MORTGAGE at 16...

You can do that (again what does this have to do with voting)


Quote:

just even taking responsibility for their own actions even ::) ::) ::)

Many 16 year olds are independent, my SO was out of home by 15.


Quote:

I seem to remember a young Lib winning a seat in  Parliament I think he was 20 and the sneering from the  left was HUGE. ;D ;D ;D

Because he is a Young Liberal shithead who engaged in very legally dubious actions, not because he was 20.[/quote]


what a stooopid young man you are.. we are talking about LEGALLY...

if voting at 16 becomes LEGAL.. so do all the other things that go with coming of AGE...

.responsibility...

we do not tell young people they can VOTE AT 18

but cant drive or drink legally until they are 21 do we?

Bill "17%" Shorten is a Muslim - hear me out guys

How old were the Prophet Muhammad's wife? Weren't they all 12? Of the 15 wives - I think only one that was over 15. Horney bastard

If this election he can reduce voting age to 16. Next election he'll want Sharia law in Australia to lower other age restrictions as well

Maqqa wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 5:58pm:

Bill "17%" Shorten is a Muslim - hear me out guys How old were the Prophet Muhammad's wife? Weren't they all 12? If this election he can reduce voting age to 16. Next election he'll want Sharia law in Australia to lower other age restrictions as well

oh grow up macca....you are sounding like the left desperate to win a point...dont twist this into a anti muslim thread please...shortarse has come out and actually stated this...

and its pathetic we all know.. well at least sensible people do...would you like your 16 year old to be buying  or selling grog legally  at 16??.. ::) ::) ::)

mariacostel wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 5:38pm:

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 1:06pm: Old enough to work, old enough to vote. Doesn't matter how many. Again, I fail to see any legitimate arguments against moving the age down to 16. Teens today are quite politically informed. Also Teens who don't want to vote DON'T HAVE TO VOTE, everyone has the freedom to register when they wish. You can work at 13 so why not have voting at 13?

Old enough to work, old enough to vote, though I doubt a 13 year old will be paying any tax.

Again, something has to be done to improve political participation of Youth, lowering the voting age is the easy solution.

Not a single one of you have brought up a single relevant point that can't be extended to most adults.
Most adults aren't part of the army, most adults don't own property, most adults don't know anything about Politics.

Why should the young be underrepresented and subject to the tyranny of those retiring? Why should a 60 year old decide the future of not only a 16 year old, but essentially anyone <30?

How about we just give <30 two votes then? Surely that will even things out because the way demographics are at the moment.

50+ voters: 7.2 million
18-35 voters: 2.4 million.

How is that in any way fair? That is complete and utter generational tyranny.

Aussie wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 5:46pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 5:38pm: Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 1:06pm: Old enough to work, old enough to vote. Doesn't matter how many. Again, I fail to see any legitimate arguments against moving the age down to 16. Teens today are quite politically informed. Also Teens who don't want to vote DON'T HAVE TO VOTE, everyone has the freedom to register when they wish. You can work at 13 so why not have voting at 13? Indeed, why not, provided they have proven they have a proper understanding of 'political science.'

Since when was that a criteria for the right to vote? If 'working' is to be the guideline then what about pre-teens with incomes from acting or modelling?  Do we allow babies and toddlers the right to vote?  And should we therefore prohibit people without jobs from voting?

The argument about working is ludicrous.

;D ;D
cods wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 6:01pm:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 5:58pm: Bill "17%" Shorten is a Muslim - hear me out guys How old were the Prophet Muhammad's wife? Weren't they all 12? If this election he can reduce voting age to 16. Next election he'll want Sharia law in Australia to lower other age restrictions as well oh grow up macca....you are sounding like the left desperate to win a point...dont twist this into a anti muslim thread please...shortarse has come out and actually stated this... and its pathetic we all know.. well at least sensible people do...would you like your 16 year old to be buying  or selling grog legally  at 16??

;D ;D

hi cods

I'd thought it would be a good idea to mix the ludicrous with the sane and see if the lefties know the difference  :o :o

Why should 'working' have anything to do with it? If we made that a criteria there are lot of people here who would be denied the vote.

cods wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 5:57pm:

we do not tell young people they can VOTE AT 18 but cant drive or drink legally until they are 21 do we?

Considering the Government numerous times has flagged wanting to raise drinking age to 21, yes, yes that may happen. In the US you can vote at 18 but you are not considered an adult until 21.

Austria has a voting age of 16 is it burning down in flames?
Scotland has a voting age of 16
Many places in Germany have a voting age of 16
Many states in the US allow 17 year olds to vote
Brasil has 16 year old voting
Ecuadore, Argentina, Malta, Estonia all 16.

The fact Australians think 16 year olds are retarded or something, says more about the views of the "adults" and how out of touch they are with engaging with youth more than anything about 16 year olds themselves.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 6:08pm:

Why should 'working' have anything to do with it? If we made that a criteria there are lot of people here who would be denied the vote.

Then surely anyone under 18 shouldn't have to pay any tax and not have to pay GST right? How fair is taxation without representation?

mariacostel wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 6:08pm:

Why should 'working' have anything to do with it? If we made that a criteria there are lot of people here who would be denied the vote.

Yet another dumb comment with no basis in fact.

You ARE getting rather good at it...

mariacostel wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 6:07pm:

Aussie wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 5:46pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 5:38pm: Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 1:06pm: Old enough to work, old enough to vote. Doesn't matter how many. Again, I fail to see any legitimate arguments against moving the age down to 16. Teens today are quite politically informed. Also Teens who don't want to vote DON'T HAVE TO VOTE, everyone has the freedom to register when they wish. You can work at 13 so why not have voting at 13? Indeed, why not, provided they have proven they have a proper understanding of 'political science.' Since when was that a criteria for the right to vote? If 'working' is to be the guideline then what about pre-teens with incomes from acting or modelling?  Do we allow babies and toddlers the right to vote?  And should we therefore prohibit people without jobs from voting? The argument about working is ludicrous.

It is not, and if you read what I have posted in this Thread, you will better understand my position.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 6:08pm:

Why should 'working' have anything to do with it? If we made that a criteria there are lot of people here who would be denied the vote.

Exactly the same relevance "They can't even *insert thing they probably can do*" argument.

My main argument is on demographics. Youth vote is underepresented almost 3:1, the 70+ demographic alone is almost the same size as the entire youth demographic and most of those people suffer from dementia.

Why should 50, 60, 75 year olds be dominating the conversation on things that mostly effect 15, 20, 25, 30 year olds and future generations?

Boomers have had their lives, they had their families and they seem to be more than willing to sell ours out. By the time my niece hits 30 scientists predict there will be massive climate catastrophies across the globe and climate refugee numbers will be unfathomable.

Why is her future sold out because Boomers will never have to experience that and only care about "Muh investment property".

Again, there is a reason Boomers are called "The Selfish Generation"

Kat wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 6:14pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 6:08pm: Why should 'working' have anything to do with it? If we made that a criteria there are lot of people here who would be denied the vote. Yet another dumb comment with no basis in fact. You ARE getting rather good at it...

Of course that would worry you since you scarcely EVER work.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 6:36pm:

Kat wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 6:14pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 6:08pm: Why should 'working' have anything to do with it? If we made that a criteria there are lot of people here who would be denied the vote. Yet another dumb comment with no basis in fact. You ARE getting rather good at it... Of course that would worry you since you scarcely EVER work.

BAAAAAAhahahahaha!!!

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 6:35pm:

Again, there is a reason Boomers are called "The Selfish Generation"

Do tell us. Started work at 15, retired, live in an $80k house. Why am I "Selfish"?

Because you're a generation that has left nothing but debt and little investment in society in its wake. The Boomer generation was handed massive boom times and new infrastructure post-war, were given free education and cheap housing and goods and then left the next generations a dying planet, the inability to own homes and the absolute flat out dominance of policy skewed to pandering to the older demographic.

Lets be honest here, I will never get retirement, it will be phased out by the time I'm 65. I never got free Uni and Boomer dominated politics has seen education cost skyrocket, I will likely never be able to afford a home at current rates like the majority of my generation, we will be left with the effects of climate change while you Boomers fight tooth and nail against action, chances are Gen Y/Post-Gen Y will likely never get access to their super, a lot can happen between now and 2050+

In terms of policy, the Boomer generation has always been pandered too and pampered, it is us who have to clean up your mess. Honestly will throw a party the day the last boomer in this country kicks the bucket as many in Gen Y will do.

lee wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 6:40pm:

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 6:35pm: Again, there is a reason Boomers are called "The Selfish Generation" Do tell us. Started work at 15, retired, live in an $80k house. Why am I "Selfish"?

You have more than him.

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 6:49pm:

were given free education and cheap housing and goods and then left the next generations a dying planet, the inability to own homes and the absolute flat out dominance of policy skewed to pandering to the older demographic.

What cheap housing? What dying planet? My son is a next generation and owns his own home, far more expensive than mine.


Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 6:49pm:

I never got free Uni

Neither did I. I was in the Army by the time Gough got in. It's his fault.


Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 6:49pm:

we will be left with the effects of climate change

The climate has been changing since time immemorial. Anthropogenic CO2 is 0.117% of GHG's. Huge ain't it?


Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 6:49pm:

chances are Gen Y/Post-Gen Y will likely never get access to their super, a lot can happen between now and 2050+

Yep, there could be another boom. Depressing, isn't it? You mean they are all going to die young, when Boomers, through study, have lifted life expectancies?

You won't clean up my mess. You are too busy crying into your cab-sav.

Silly idea lowering the voting age to 16.

lee wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 7:04pm:

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 6:49pm: were given free education and cheap housing and goods and then left the next generations a dying planet, the inability to own homes and the absolute flat out dominance of policy skewed to pandering to the older demographic. What cheap housing? What dying planet? My son is a next generation and owns his own home, far more expensive than mine. Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 6:49pm: I never got free Uni Neither did I. I was in the Army by the time Gough got in. It's his fault. Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 6:49pm: we will be left with the effects of climate change The climate has been changing since time immemorial. Anthropogenic CO2 is 0.117% of GHG's. Huge ain't it? Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 6:49pm: chances are Gen Y/Post-Gen Y will likely never get access to their super, a lot can happen between now and 2050+ Yep, there could be another boom. Depressing, isn't it? You mean they are all going to die young, when Boomers, through study, have lifted life expectancies? You won't clean up my mess. You are too busy crying into your cab-sav.

My kids stand to inherit in the millions and have been denied nothing in their lives.  I finished high school at 15.5 (Leaving Certificate) and worked like a dog for years.

A good way to retire rich - don't get divorced. Sexually Transmitted Debt.

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/mooning/old-man-mooning.gif

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 8:03pm:

lee wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 7:04pm: Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 6:49pm: were given free education and cheap housing and goods and then left the next generations a dying planet, the inability to own homes and the absolute flat out dominance of policy skewed to pandering to the older demographic. What cheap housing? What dying planet? My son is a next generation and owns his own home, far more expensive than mine. Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 6:49pm: I never got free Uni Neither did I. I was in the Army by the time Gough got in. It's his fault. Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 6:49pm: we will be left with the effects of climate change The climate has been changing since time immemorial. Anthropogenic CO2 is 0.117% of GHG's. Huge ain't it? Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 6:49pm: chances are Gen Y/Post-Gen Y will likely never get access to their super, a lot can happen between now and 2050+ Yep, there could be another boom. Depressing, isn't it? You mean they are all going to die young, when Boomers, through study, have lifted life expectancies? You won't clean up my mess. You are too busy crying into your cab-sav. My kids stand to inherit in the millions and have been denied nothing in their lives.  I finished high school at 15.5 (Leaving Certificate) and worked like a dog for years.

Of course they do.

The internet is a wonderful place where fantasies come true. ::)

Oh my goodness , he just must be a lonely old guy.

Next he will be an ex astronaut... ::)

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 8:02pm:

Silly idea lowering the voting age to 16.

Why? The law says Raven can start f.ucking at 16.

If Raven is going to get f.ucked he might as well have a say at who's gonna f.uck him

LifeOrDeath wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 8:41pm:

Oh my goodness , he just must be a lonely old guy. Next he will be an ex astronaut... ::)

It's a pretty good chance! 

Raven wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2015 at 1:39am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 8:02pm: Silly idea lowering the voting age to 16. Why? The law says Raven can start f.ucking at 16. If Raven is going to get f.ucked he might as well have a say at who's gonna f.uck him

Politicians will dam you Raven, but not like that.

lol....it changed sc-re-w to dam


pass the screwdriver please.....just testing

I need a screw for this job

you have a screw loose

huh????? screw screw screw

lee wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 7:04pm:

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 6:49pm: were given free education and cheap housing and goods and then left the next generations a dying planet, the inability to own homes and the absolute flat out dominance of policy skewed to pandering to the older demographic. What cheap housing? What dying planet? My son is a next generation and owns his own home, far more expensive than mine. Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 6:49pm: I never got free Uni Neither did I. I was in the Army by the time Gough got in. It's his fault. Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 6:49pm: we will be left with the effects of climate change The climate has been changing since time immemorial. Anthropogenic CO2 is 0.117% of GHG's. Huge ain't it? Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 6:49pm: chances are Gen Y/Post-Gen Y will likely never get access to their super, a lot can happen between now and 2050+ Yep, there could be another boom. Depressing, isn't it? You mean they are all going to die young, when Boomers, through study, have lifted life expectancies? You won't clean up my mess. You are too busy crying into your cab-sav.

Housing was far cheaper in the past than it is now, cost of living has skyrocketed. Even if you yourself didn't get free education (but education until the 1990s basically cost pennies compared to now. Oh look climate change denial from the boomer that my generation will suffer for. No, there isn't a chance for another boom. Global profitability has been on a downward trend since post war era. Booms were largely based on resource sector which is already winding down, automation and AI will throw millions/billions out of work, Climate Change will essentially wipe out developing nations causing the biggest human migration in history (which is ALREADY HAPPENING, the Syrian Civil War started with an unusual after drought several poor crop seasons)

Wahhh "I worked since I was 15 how am I selfish" You and your generation are selfish because as a generation you have reaped the world for yourself then kicked everyone else down the stairs. You just need to look at the NBN to see how Boomers want to sabotage future generations because "Muh rates" fear mongering.

Again, you are leaving us with a dying planet. Thanks boomers, thanks for smacking up the entire planet then blocking any attempt to try mitigate it. We are so grateful.

Believe me when I say this from the whole of Gen Y, we will party when the last of your generation dies. I'm not saying this as just me, I've heard this sentiment echoed hundreds, thousands of times over the years.

And if there is any reason to give 16 year olds the vote, it still is, you Boomer f*cks outnumber us 3:1 in voting and actively screw us over every time.

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2015 at 8:48am:

Climate Change will essentially wipe out developing nations causing the biggest human migration in history (which is ALREADY HAPPENING, the Syrian Civil War started with an unusual after drought several poor crop seasons)

So several poor crop season is climate change? The World Meteorological Organisation says climate is 30 years; the rest is just weather. can you show 30 consecutive years of poor crops?

You are just a whinger.

Ah well, if it is a dying planet sit on your ass. because you are too afraid to try and right it.

house prices? You have never had mortgage rates over 18%.

Quote:

So several poor crop season is climate change? The World Meteorological Organisation says climate is 30 years; the rest is just weather. can you show 30 consecutive years of poor crops?

I don't even know how to respond to such stupidity.


Quote:

h well, if it is a dying planet sit on your ass. because you are too afraid to try and right it.

Yeah, me, alone, is going to stop billions of tonnes of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere. There was something that stopped it... wasn't it a carbon tax? Oh wait got rid of that because you old Boomer f***s cried about "Muh rates" and then sold out my entire generation for non-existent savings.


Quote:

house prices? You have never had mortgage rates over 18%.

Wanna sell me your house for $60,000? that was the average housing price including inflation 1970 according to the treasury.

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2015 at 12:24pm:

Wanna sell me your house for $60,000? that was the average housing price including inflation 1970 according to the treasury.

Sorry, I am not going below its value at $80,000. :D :D :D


Kiron22 wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2015 at 12:24pm:

Yeah, me, alone, is going to stop billions of tonnes of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere

What about some of your whinger mates? Or don't you have any? You mean the 0.117%, the CO2 proportion, of GHG's. You are so funny.

Yeah I'm so funny that I trust the global scientific community while you trust denialist blogs and the Daily Terrorgraph because you want any excuse not to have any tax money go anywhere but yourself.

Raven wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2015 at 1:39am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 8:02pm: Silly idea lowering the voting age to 16. Why? The law says Raven can start f.ucking at 16. If Raven is going to get f.ucked he might as well have a say at who's gonna f.uck him

Doesn't say Raven could f.uck the country as well. 

lee wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2015 at 11:47am:

You have never had mortgage rates over 18%.

What would you rather 18% interest rates from Jun 89 to March 90 & today's Australia, or an economy somewhere between Nth Korea & Somalia but 13.50 capped rates?

Wow when you see it's only a 4.5% difference it doesn't sound so bad, kind like 10.5 in May 96 & the 5% now.

Although as pointed out 1 medium wage could afford 18%, difficult yes but with sacrifice doable.

Imagine if rates went to 10.5 now.

Yeah last time I looked, Austria and many other countries that have a voting age of 16 are burning to the ground  ::)

Again, this says nothing of 16 year olds, this says a lot about Australia's Ageism.

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2015 at 12:39pm:

Yeah I'm so funny that I trust the global scientific community while you trust denialist blogs and the Daily Terrorgraph because you want any excuse not to have any tax money go anywhere but yourself.

IPCC, NASA, NOOA are denialist blogs? What a fool.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2015 at 12:49pm:

Although as pointed out 1 medium wage could afford 18%, difficult yes but with sacrifice doable.

Yes, that's the sticking point. No-one wants to do the sacrifice bit.

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2015 at 12:39pm:

Yeah I'm so funny that I trust the global scientific community while you trust denialist blogs and the Daily Terrorgraph because you want any excuse not to have any tax money go anywhere but yourself.

That seems to be a prime objective for all rightards.

I'll bet they were the little bastards who wouldn't share their toys as kids...

Alludes to a good analogy for leftards; still playing with toys.

double plus good wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2015 at 3:24pm:

Alludes to good analogy for leftards; still playing with toys.

Those comprehension skills could use some work...

You're the one that could use some work by the sounds.

double plus good wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2015 at 4:07pm:

You're the one that could use some work by the sounds.

Got plenty, thanks.

Kat wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2015 at 4:08pm:

double plus good wrote on Nov 2nd, 2015 at 4:07pm: You're the one that could use some work by the sounds. Got plenty, thanks.

Get on your bike cat. ;) ;)

double plus good wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2015 at 4:11pm:

Kat wrote on Nov 2nd, 2015 at 4:08pm: double plus good wrote on Nov 2nd, 2015 at 4:07pm: You're the one that could use some work by the sounds. Got plenty, thanks. Get on your bike cat. ;) ;)

Ner, looks like rain.

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2015 at 8:48am:

lee wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 7:04pm: Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 6:49pm: were given free education and cheap housing and goods and then left the next generations a dying planet, the inability to own homes and the absolute flat out dominance of policy skewed to pandering to the older demographic. What cheap housing? What dying planet? My son is a next generation and owns his own home, far more expensive than mine. Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 6:49pm: I never got free Uni Neither did I. I was in the Army by the time Gough got in. It's his fault. Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 6:49pm: we will be left with the effects of climate change The climate has been changing since time immemorial. Anthropogenic CO2 is 0.117% of GHG's. Huge ain't it? Kiron22 wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 6:49pm: chances are Gen Y/Post-Gen Y will likely never get access to their super, a lot can happen between now and 2050+ Yep, there could be another boom. Depressing, isn't it? You mean they are all going to die young, when Boomers, through study, have lifted life expectancies? You won't clean up my mess. You are too busy crying into your cab-sav. Housing was far cheaper in the past than it is now, cost of living has skyrocketed. Even if you yourself didn't get free education (but education until the 1990s basically cost pennies compared to now. Oh look climate change denial from the boomer that my generation will suffer for. No, there isn't a chance for another boom. Global profitability has been on a downward trend since post war era. Booms were largely based on resource sector which is already winding down, automation and AI will throw millions/billions out of work, Climate Change will essentially wipe out developing nations causing the biggest human migration in history (which is ALREADY HAPPENING, the Syrian Civil War started with an unusual after drought several poor crop seasons) Wahhh "I worked since I was 15 how am I selfish" You and your generation are selfish because as a generation you have reaped the world for yourself then kicked everyone else down the stairs. You just need to look at the NBN to see how Boomers want to sabotage future generations because "Muh rates" fear mongering. Again, you are leaving us with a dying planet. Thanks boomers, thanks for smacking up the entire planet then blocking any attempt to try mitigate it. We are so grateful. Believe me when I say this from the whole of Gen Y, we will party when the last of your generation dies. I'm not saying this as just me, I've heard this sentiment echoed hundreds, thousands of times over the years. And if there is any reason to give 16 year olds the vote, it still is, you Boomer f*cks outnumber us 3:1 in voting and actively screw us over every time.

Feeling is mutual. Your problem is not boomers, but YOU and your philosophy of failure and entitlement. Dump your failed communism and embrace hard work.

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2015 at 12:24pm:

Quote: So several poor crop season is climate change? The World Meteorological Organisation says climate is 30 years; the rest is just weather. can you show 30 consecutive years of poor crops? I don't even know how to respond to such stupidity. [quote] h well, if it is a dying planet sit on your ass. because you are too afraid to try and right it.

Yeah, me, alone, is going to stop billions of tonnes of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere. There was something that stopped it... wasn't it a carbon tax? Oh wait got rid of that because you old Boomer f***s cried about "Muh rates" and then sold out my entire generation for non-existent savings.


Quote:

house prices? You have never had mortgage rates over 18%.

Wanna sell me your house for $60,000? that was the average housing price including inflation 1970 according to the treasury.[/quote]


You are just a loser blaming everyone else for your failure.

you don't read to well do you Maria, everyday life must be soooo hard for you

he's not blaming everyone, he's blaming the baby boomers  :D :D

There's quite a few posters on OP who have ACTUALLY DONE SFA who know the cure for all of the world's ills. All you need to do is sit on the sidelines and criticise anyone with the balls to have a go.

Baby Boomers?


Quote:

Baby boomers are people born during the demographic post–World War II baby boom approximately between the years 1946 and 1964, currently ages 50 to 69. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the term "baby boomer" is also used in a cultural context.

What are people over 69 and under 50 called?  ;D

Over 69 is 'the builder generation' and under 50 is 'generation x'. There's also 'generation y' but buggered if I know what that is.

Neferti wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2015 at 5:57pm:

Baby Boomers? Quote: Baby boomers are people born during the demographic post–World War II baby boom approximately between the years 1946 and 1964, currently ages 50 to 69. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the term "baby boomer" is also used in a cultural context. What are people over 69 and under 50 called?  ;D

My preferred date range for Gen X is


The generation was traditionally begun at 1965, taking off from the birth-rate-based Baby Boom span of 1946-1964, but since many notable people who are normally thought of as clearly Gen-X, such as Courtney Love, Janeane Garofalo and Eddie Vedder, were born in 1964, this year is often cited as the preferred beginning of Generation X. In their book Generations William Strauss and Neil Howe called this generation the "13th Generation" because the tag, like this generation, is a little Halloweenish, and it is the thirteenth to know the flag of the United States (counting back to the peers of Benjamin Franklin) and set its birth years at 1961 to 1981.

http://generationx.yaia.com/definition.html



Generation X: Those born roughly between 1963-1980 (now aged early-30s to mid-40s.) Gen-Xers are often labelled the "slacker" generation, uncommitted and unfocused. The "why me?" generation. They are the first generation to have experienced divorce on a large scale and are likely to have changed careers several times. While their parents grew up in the era of the Civil Rights movement, Xers are considered more likely to want to keep their heads down than to change the world.

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/talkin-bout-my-label-20110720-1ho7s.html#ixzz3qJw9BPaw