Comments by "Orwellian Horseman of the Apocalypse" (@DennisMoore664) on "James O'Brien and LBC callers debate votes for 16 year olds" video.

@larsg.2492 "it's just a phrase you throw out without thinking about it." Are you new to YouTube? Let's see - nope. You joined Aug 20, 2016 so by now you should recognize shitposting when you see it.
3
As do many conservative politicians around the world. It's a form of government that only works for them when they control who gets to participate.
2
@Octamed they wrote "after retirement" so at whatever age in their 60's that happens for someone (probably with an exception for people who retire early in their 40's or 50's). It's a silly idea, but so is not letting people at whatever age who have completed a civics class not be allowed to take part in their countries representative democracy.
1
@Octamed The OP is talking about people who have retired. You're comment doesn't clarify that you were not also talking about people who have retired, so that's on you Octamed. But the funny thing about your reply is I also included the 'under a certain age' bit. It's in there when I wrote the sentence about letting people who have completed a civics class take part in their countries representative democracy. Most students who have a class on government and civics do that during high school. If you need a 'certain age' answer I'll go with Sophomore year so around 15 or 16 (but also younger if the student wants to take it sooner). From my perspective it's not about the age it's about comprehension. When I was a substitute teacher there were grade schoolers in my classes with more than enough common sense and clarity and who already had the maturity to take part in voting in an election. I am not saying every child at any age should get to vote, but the few who want to and are willing to seriously educate themselves on the candidates and the issues should be permitted to take part. Hope this wasn't TLDR.
1
4:11 - now that's a mug!
1