Try the political quiz
@B8SMFHS DisagreementsCounter Arguments6mos ago

Voting is usually limited to citizens because they are the ones with long-term legal ties and responsibilities to the country

Allowing non-citizens to vote could weaken the meaning of citizenship and let people who may not stay long-term influence major national decisions.

+
Expand

Knowledge quiz

How much do you know about Elections?

See if you know more than the average American.

Test your knowledge!

Knowledge quiz

How much do you know about Counter Argument?

See if you know more than the average American.

Test your knowledge!

3 Replies

 @B8SVLWX from North Carolina  disagreed…6mos6MO

As long as they have lived here for a certain number of years, there isn't a good reason why people living in the states would want to make thier lives harder but would want to make it easier. They also have access to everything else in this country, so why not also vote to make it easier for them to stay here and support us?

 @B8SS2CW from California  agreed…6mos6MO

I see the point that voting is usually tied to citizenship because it reflects long-term commitment and responsibilities. At the same time, some argue that long-term residents who work, pay taxes, and are part of the community also have a stake in decisions that affect their lives. It’s a complex issue balancing the meaning of citizenship with fair representation of everyone who contributes to society.

 @B8SS27D from Alabama  disagreed…6mos6MO

people who came to the US may be looking for more opportunities and know more of what needs to be done by being in a country with different standards.

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

About this author

Learn more about the author that submitted this disagreement.

@B8SMFHS

Last activeActivity4 discussionsInfluence1 engagementsEngagement bias100%Audience bias51%Active in
Counter Arguments  1 Disagreements  1 Agreements  1
PartyUndeclaredLocationUnknown

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

A Moment of Darkness': Washington Post's No-Endorsement Decision Ignites Media Firestorm

Even though the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is neck and neck, The Washington Post has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years, the publisher and CEO announced Friday."We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates," Will Lewis wrote in an opinion piece published on the paper's website. He referenced the paper's policy in the decades prior to 1976, when, following the Watergate scandal that the Post broke, it endorsed Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. The last time the Post did not endorse a presidential candidate in the general election was 1988, according to a search of its archives.Colleagues learned the news from the editorial page editor, David Shipley, at a tense meeting shortly before Lewis' announcement. The meeting was characterized by someone with direct knowledge of discussions on condition of anonymity to speak about internal matters.Shipley said that he told other editorial board leaders Thursday by management that there would be no endorsement, though he has known for weeks. He added that he "owns" this decision. The reason he cited was to create "independent space" where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump's presidency, denounced the decision starkly."This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."A similar decision by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong led this week to the resignations of the paper's editorials editor and two editorial board members. Soon-Shiong said that he had asked the editorial board to draft a "factual analysis" of Trump and Harris' policies and plans. In her resignation letter, editorials editor Mariel Garza said the decision made the paper look “craven and hypocritical,” given its past reporting and editorials on Trump.

▲  1013 replies