Desperation: Obama Surrogate Calls to Make Voting Mandatory [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Desperation: Obama Surrogate Calls to Make Voting Mandatory


DOC44
06-21-2012, 19:52
Vote or die


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/21/Desperation-Obama-Surrogate-Calls-To-Make-Voting-Mandatory

Doc44

Glock30Eric
06-21-2012, 19:56
Wow, just wow.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Brucev
06-21-2012, 20:06
Re: OP. This comes as no surprise. Originally the franchise only pertained to property owners. It's near universal extension incorporated many citizens into the electoral process whose participation was never envisioned or desired by the founding fathers. Given that there is nothing in the Constitution to preclude it, why would requiring qualified citizens to participate in the electoral process be problematic?

samurairabbi
06-21-2012, 20:15
They leave out the principal question: if someone does NOT vote, what is the penalty inflicted for not voting?

DOC44
06-21-2012, 20:20
Re: OP. This comes as no surprise. Originally the franchise only pertained to property owners. It's near universal extension incorporated many citizens into the electoral process whose participation was never envisioned or desired by the founding fathers. Given that there is nothing in the Constitution to preclude it, why would requiring qualified citizens to participate in the electoral process be problematic?

They leave out the principal question: if someone does NOT vote, what is the penalty inflicted for not voting?

Vote or Die, MFer

Intimidation

Doc44

Brucev
06-21-2012, 20:42
Vote or Die, MFer

Intimidation

Doc44

All men upon reaching age 18 are required to register with the Selective Service. That is the law. Other than the squatter and a few other criminals, most if not all men comply. Yet the COTUS does not authorize a draft. Why would requiring citizens to vote be any different? If some find it objectionable, the same has been true of the draft. Yet we were all told that we had to comply with the law as it was in the national interest for us to all be registered so that we could be drafted to protect the world from communism. Why should being required by law to exercise ones franchise be seen any differently that being required to give up several years of your life in military service to act as rental soldiers for old europe and various middle eastern client states?

samurairabbi
06-21-2012, 20:47
Vote or Die, MFer

Intimidation

Doc44
Now THAT election would be eventful! Inner city homeboys and rural rednecks finally agreeing on something!

I might even vote early to fulfill my civic duty, and then join the opposition hijinks afterwards!

samurairabbi
06-21-2012, 20:52
Why should being required by law to exercise ones franchise be seen any differently that being required to give up several years of your life in military service to act as rental soldiers for old europe and various middle eastern client states?

Because registering for the draft has been ruled by the US Supreme Court to have a valid constitutional aspect, namely the war powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. Mandatory voting does not have such a constitutional basis.

stevelyn
06-21-2012, 21:05
He can deploy the NBPP as enforcers. They already have experience and expertise in the voter intimidation field anyway.

samurairabbi
06-21-2012, 21:20
You'll get that voting lever into my hands when you force it into my cold dead fingers!

QNman
06-21-2012, 22:05
Folks, if you didn't take the time to watch the Southpark YouTube video at the bottom of this article... you should. It is far more entertaining and, frankly,says more than the article about the silliness of this persons "campaign".

janice6
06-21-2012, 22:09
I suppose "they" will come with guns to escort us to the voting booth, to force our liberty upon us.

Pathetic.


Some people have nothing. What is the pressure you bring to bear on them to make them comply? If you have nothing to lose, then force is the default.

JBnTX
06-21-2012, 22:16
One more reason why Obama MUST be defeated.

:steamed:

CitizenOfDreams
06-21-2012, 22:47
I wonder what else will become mandatory in this country by the end of Obama's second term?

walt cowan
06-22-2012, 05:13
this is why the ussr had a 99% turn out. hard to say your the serve the people's will when less than 40% voted in a election.

HexHead
06-22-2012, 05:23
I suppose "they" will come with guns to escort us to the voting booth, to force our liberty upon us.



It will be the New Black Panthers that show up at your door to escort you to the polls.

walt cowan
06-22-2012, 06:34
we'er dibold. leave the voting to us.

nursetim
06-22-2012, 07:21
I would go a step further, mandatory voting, EXCEPT those recieving government benefits. I could go for that.

Brucev
06-22-2012, 07:40
Because registering for the draft has been ruled by the US Supreme Court to have a valid constitutional aspect, namely the war powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. Mandatory voting does not have such a constitutional basis.

Given that the little boys and girls in the black robes have decided that corporations are persons and that money is speech, it would not be a problem for that same bunch to find a Constitutional shred upon which to predicate a basis for requiring citizens to vote. Given that the ruling on corporate personhood and money as speech were very much driven to serve a particular political interest, there would be no legitimate basis to argue that requiring all citizens to vote was not also perfectly in the national interest.

Brucev
06-22-2012, 07:44
I suppose "they" will come with guns to escort us to the voting booth, to force our liberty upon us.

Pathetic.

Some people have nothing. What is the pressure you bring to bear on them to make them comply? If you have nothing to lose, then force is the default.

The process of enforcement would not be difficult. Just look at how successful have been the efforts of conservatives to win the drug war.

Forcing liberty? No. Requiring participation in the elective process. The willingness of the citizen is respected exactly as in requiring registration for and compliance with the draft.

Bren
06-22-2012, 07:47
Yet the COTUS does not authorize a draft. Why would requiring citizens to vote be any different? If some find it objectionable, the same has been true of the draft. Yet we were all told that we had to comply with the law as it was in the national interest for us to all be registered so that we could be drafted to protect the world from communism. Why should being required by law to exercise ones franchise be seen any differently that being required to give up several years of your life in military service to act as rental soldiers for old europe and various middle eastern client states?

The constitution does authorize a draft. It gives congress the power to raise an Army and Navy, with no express limitation on how.

Brucev
06-22-2012, 07:53
I would go a step further, mandatory voting, EXCEPT those recieving government benefits. I could go for that.

So... people receiving Social Security, any sort of veterans benefits, etc. would all be excluded from the franchise. Or is it possible that the assumption behind such a suggestion is that some folks receiving fed. benefits are to be given more rights than others receiving fed. benefits? Like it or not, the citizen who rets any fed. check is the cause of our nation borrowing $.40 on the dollar to fund the national budget/debt. There is no difference. They are one and all exactly the same... people receiving benefits from the fed. govt. Really want to cut them all off from voting. Really? All of them? Or just the ones you or someone else doesn't like?

Brucev
06-22-2012, 07:57
The constitution does authorize a draft. It gives congress the power to raise an Army and Navy, with no express limitation on how.

The COTUS is a remarkable document. Much that would be needed was anticipated. Much that would be needed was never envisioned. So, we the people vote for and elect representatives and those representatives legislate.

valvestem
06-22-2012, 08:10
I have three words for someone who tells me I must vote or pay a penalty.

aircarver
06-22-2012, 08:18
They leave out the principal question: if someone does NOT vote, what is the penalty inflicted for not voting?

His vote automatically goes to the socialist ? .....:supergrin:

.

aircarver
06-22-2012, 08:23
I'll be all for it....

....if the ballot is changed to have a category:

None of the above.
Eliminate the office.
Give the money back to the taxpayers .....

:supergrin:

.

Lethaltxn
06-22-2012, 08:25
The process of enforcement would not be difficult. Just look at how successful have been the efforts of conservatives to win the drug war.

Forcing liberty? No. Requiring participation in the elective process. The willingness of the citizen is respected exactly as in requiring registration for and compliance with the draft.


Isn't just conservatives supporting the WoD.

Lethaltxn
06-22-2012, 08:29
So... people receiving Social Security, any sort of veterans benefits, etc. would all be excluded from the franchise. Or is it possible that the assumption behind such a suggestion is that some folks receiving fed. benefits are to be given more rights than others receiving fed. benefits? Like it or not, the citizen who rets any fed. check is the cause of our nation borrowing $.40 on the dollar to fund the national budget/debt. There is no difference. They are one and all exactly the same... people receiving benefits from the fed. govt. Really want to cut them all off from voting. Really? All of them? Or just the ones you or someone else doesn't like?

See how he throws the VA benefits in there?
http://img.tapatalk.com/417c5e0a-814b-2bb0.jpg

Peace Officer
06-22-2012, 08:31
You have to keep in mind one thing: THIS ONCE GREAT COUNTRY OF OURS RUNS ON NOTHING BUT PURE BULLS@&%! If you don't agree with that, just look who we have in office along with our Attorney General. Even God can't help America now as long as we have the "Muslim" in office!

Lethaltxn
06-22-2012, 08:32
You have to keep in mind one thing: THIS ONCE GREAT COUNTRY OF OURS RUNS ON NOTHING BUT PURE BULLS@&%! If you don't agree with that, just look who we have in office along with our Attorney General. Even God can't help America now as long as we have the "Muslim" in office!

Ok? :dunno:

CitizenOfDreams
06-22-2012, 08:52
this is why the ussr had a 99% turn out.

The USSR mostly had high elections turnout (although I'm not sure about 99%) because at the buffet you could buy some goodies not commonly seen in stores.

Here is an idea for Obama: a special model of Nike shoes only available at polling places and not sold elsewhere.

Goaltender66
06-22-2012, 09:06
Thing is, refusing to participate in an election is a choice too. Whether it's a simple expression of no confidence or genuine apathy, it's still a choice.

In fact, if someone is apathetic enough to decide to skip election day, what in the world makes us think that by forcing him to vote he'd be an informed voter? If a voter doesn't care enough to vote, he's probably not going to care enough to cast an informed vote and we're all better off if he self-selects himself out of the voter pool.

Another thing...while we on GTPI talk politics a lot, and people here tend to be pretty plugged into politics, the US population really isn't. I think it's because here in the US, politics isn't the same kind of life-or-death matter as it is in, say, Libya (where the wrong party in power may mean you get Excedrin Headache # .357....). So from a certain perspective, having a society where we don't eat, breathe, and live politics is actually a kind of decent society.

Bottom line...I never understood the fetish of voter participation and bemoaning "lack of participation" in the system. High participation is not, in and of itself, all that.

walt cowan
06-22-2012, 09:24
the rnc saw this problem of low voter turn out with mccain in 2008. they knew he was going to lose against barry but, couldn't afford to lose big. that would have been a fatal blow to the party and mark the birth of a new americn party. palin was brought on not to win but, to help pad the voter turn out. barry and mitt see the same problem....

cowboy1964
06-22-2012, 09:36
Wow, my respect for Australia has just tanked.

Brucev
06-22-2012, 09:43
I'll be all for it....

....if the ballot is changed to have a category:

None of the above.
Eliminate the office.
Give the money back to the taxpayers .....

:supergrin:

.

A range of germane ballot choices would be a good idea.

Brucev
06-22-2012, 09:45
Isn't just conservatives supporting the WoD.

Games? Really?

Brucev
06-22-2012, 09:51
[QUOTE=Lethaltxn;19117745]See how he throws the VA benefits in there?

So... you want to avoid reality? A benefit is a benefit, regardless of the recipient. If you want a privileged tiered citizenship, say so. If we the people are to be equated with all men who are created equal... then such a tiered citizenship is not possible. From the COTUS, there does not appear to be a means by which such a privileged citizenship can be established.

Lethaltxn
06-22-2012, 09:56
[QUOTE=Lethaltxn;19117745]See how he throws the VA benefits in there?

So... you want to avoid reality? A benefit is a benefit, regardless of the recipient. If you want a privileged tiered citizenship, say so. If we the people are to be equated with all men who are created equal... then such a tiered citizenship is not possible. From the COTUS, there does not appear to be a means by which such a privileged citizenship can be established.

I'm sorry but VA benefits are earned.
Please do not attempt to equate the two.

Lethaltxn
06-22-2012, 09:59
Games? Really?

No games, facts. Dems support WoD just as much as republicans.

Brucev
06-22-2012, 10:13
[quote=Brucev;19118007]

I'm sorry but VA benefits are earned.
Please do not attempt to equate the two.

Earned? So? A benefit is a benefit. The two are precisely equal in every way. There is no difference.

Lethaltxn
06-22-2012, 10:17
[quote=Lethaltxn;19118017]

Earned? So? A benefit is a benefit. The two are precisely equal in every way. There is no difference.


I forget, how many years did you serve?

Rabbit994
06-22-2012, 10:23
From the COTUS, there does not appear to be a means by which such a privileged citizenship can be established.

Actually, voting is a privilege granted to you by state. If states switched to Starship Trooper model of voting, I would see nothing in COTUS that would prevent it. I'm sure Supreme Court could come up with something but strict reading doesn't show it.

I think voting should not be mandatory and in fact, I would outlaw voter registration drives. I want people to make effort to vote.

Jeff82
06-22-2012, 10:27
Veterans "benefits" are actually called "compensation". There must have been a "loss" to receive a compensation. You can't compare compensation for a loss to the handouts that are given through various other federal "benefits" programs.

oldman11
06-22-2012, 11:38
I wonder what else will become mandatory in this country by the end of Obama's second term?
It seems to me that the more Obama realizes he will not win this election the more he is trying to take away our freedoms and move us into a totalitarian country. His use of the NBPP in the Travon/Zimmerman case is a good example of his intentions. What I'm seeing here is a "if I can't get voted in, I'll take it by force" attitude. I think the American people are to smart to let that happen. I sure hope so anyway.

Jerry
06-22-2012, 12:16
What will they do to the dead people that don't vote. :dunno:

Jerry
06-22-2012, 12:19
It seems to me that the more Obama realizes he will not win this election the more he is trying to take away our freedoms and move us into a totalitarian country. His use of the NBPP in the Travon/Zimmerman case is a good example of his intentions. What I'm seeing here is a "if I can't get voted in, I'll take it by force" attitude. I think the American people are to smart to let that happen. I sure hope so anyway.

He feels an urgent need to do now what he would have done in his second term. If he gets it done there will be no election and he will be in power for life.

callihan_44
06-22-2012, 12:32
another way to look at this is flooding the ballot box could make it harder to weed out the fraud

janice6
06-22-2012, 12:33
Thing is, refusing to participate in an election is a choice too. Whether it's a simple expression of no confidence or genuine apathy, it's still a choice.

In fact, if someone is apathetic enough to decide to skip election day, what in the world makes us think that by forcing him to vote he'd be an informed voter? If a voter doesn't care enough to vote, he's probably not going to care enough to cast an informed vote and we're all better off if he self-selects himself out of the voter pool.

Another thing...while we on GTPI talk politics a lot, and people here tend to be pretty plugged into politics, the US population really isn't. I think it's because here in the US, politics isn't the same kind of life-or-death matter as it is in, say, Libya (where the wrong party in power may mean you get Excedrin Headache # .357....). So from a certain perspective, having a society where we don't eat, breathe, and live politics is actually a kind of decent society.

Bottom line...I never understood the fetish of voter participation and bemoaning "lack of participation" in the system. High participation is not, in and of itself, all that.


This is true. Even the SC would have to back this as a choice, a free choice.

Cambo
06-22-2012, 18:25
Just drop the pretense, make it mandatory to vote for Obama. Why give anyone in America a choice? They're already working on taking your choice of voting or not voting away. While they're at it, make it mandatory to send Obama all monetary wedding gifts as well. I really do HATE scumbag Democrats.:steamed:

427
06-22-2012, 18:39
I'm more worried about who counts and tabulates the votes rather than the voters themselves.

QNman
06-22-2012, 18:46
I would go a step further, mandatory voting, EXCEPT those recieving government benefits. I could go for that.

I'd go the other way... you have to pass a simple current civics test, given orally, before you are allowed to vote.

The last thing we need is voters who are both ignorant AND indifferent.

427
06-22-2012, 18:54
I'd go the other way... you have to pass a simple current civics test, given orally, before you are allowed to vote.

The last thing we need is voters who are both ignorant AND indifferent.

That is known as illegeracy. We have bunches of illegerate voters.

QNman
06-22-2012, 19:08
That is known as illegeracy. We have bunches of illegerate voters.

Exactly. Lets not force more to the polls. It doesn't end well when more voters who vote for the prettiest sign show up at the polls.