• rockSlayer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    6 months ago

    I don’t agree that they should abstain, but as the saying goes:

    Don’t interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake.

  • thallamabond@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    6 months ago

    “What are they going to do, protest?” …this guy probably

    Also just want to point out this is just a great example of incremental fascism

  • Granbo's Holy Hotrod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    6 months ago

    He is making the case that nursing homes had 100% participation in some cases, and there is suspicion that the staff directed them, or maybe some third party gathered them and filled them out themselves. I would love to see the proof of that. It could also be that old people in nursing homes have nothing happening and the staff supported as an activity to keep them active and …well…it is their right. Could there be an example of someone who actually broke the law and straight up filled out ballots for incapacitated elderly…prosecute that MF’r.

    • frickineh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      6 months ago

      I work in municipal government and we have the busiest ballot box in the county outside my office, and I can vouch that old people fucking love to vote. All day long on election day and the days leading up to it, it’s a line of people, many of whom who probably shouldn’t be driving, waiting to drop off their ballot. They take it super seriously. I wish everybody was as hyped to vote as the elderly.

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 months ago

      Glad someone finally said they support their right to vote lol. The thing about nursing homes is that they often have targeted efforts to help people vote, since they often struggle to get to the polls. This can be an internal effort or an external one, from a partisan group or a voting advocacy group.

  • kora@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    Given the older population’s proclivity to vote against the best interests of the next generations in hopes of finally lucking into that American Dream…

    Sure, but lets just set a cap not dependent on housing situation.

    • EdibleFriend@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I don’t agree they shouldn’t but…I mean…yeah I wont bitch if all the fucking boomers sit this one out.

  • PseudoSpock@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    To be fair, they should vote. I may not like their vote, but it’s their right to do so, and a matter of civic duty.

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    6 months ago

    I generally agree. I think it’s reasonable to restrict young children from voting (though I think we should lower the voting age to 16) because they aren’t mentally prepared for the implications of voting. I also think that at a certain point old people start losing those capabilities and also shouldn’t vote. On the upper end its going to widely vary so I don’t think there’s a reasonable way to formulate a just exclusion criteria… but I agree with the general principle.

    • fah_Q@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      I don’t think a 16 year old is not mentally prepared. It’s more that they are still mostly brainwashed by their parents, churches and a general desire to fit into a “team”. Fuck, maybe we shouldn’t the average American vote. Lol.