SURPRISE! Totalitarian Liberals Want to Make it MANDATORY TO VOTE

[kwc57]

Compulsory voting is SUCH a ridiculous notion -- especially in a Republic, such as ours, which was founded on the basic precepts of freedom and liberty.

When you convert a right into an obligation, it ceases to be a "right."

I have heard quite a few right wingers on this forum argue that voting is not a right during debates about forcing you to carry national identity papers.

It's amazing their heads don't explode from getting their own totalitarian streaks more twisted than a pretzel.

This should be easy for you to do. Point to the wording in the US Constitution that states the explicit right to vote. You know, like free speech, bearing arms, etc. You're not going to find it because it doesn't exist. The only thing you're going to find are amendments that say what you can NOT use as an exclusion to voting such as color, gender, etc. The decision about who can vote is left to the states, not the federal government. There is only ONE national election, all the rest are local to the states. The state decides who can and cannot vote as long as it doesn't violate amendments that say what items states can't use as an exclusion. Some state don't let convicted felons vote....even if they are a 35 year old black female. So, show us where the "right" to vote is in the Constitution.

Sure.

15th Amendment
Amendment XV
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


Amendment XIX
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

26th Amendment
Amendment XXVI
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

Anymore stupid questions?

Are you trying to help me? That's new. You posted exactly what I said. The amendments say you can't deny the right to vote based on age, sex or race. It didn't say you had the right to vote. You see, if the constitution said you had the right, the amendments saying what could not be used to exclude you from voting wouldn't be needed at all. Your state can refuse you the right to vote based on anything they want except for what those amendments spell out. You might want to think this over. You're welcome.

You're an idiot.

Done here.

Typically, I would have a lot of respect for your opinion because if there is anyone at USMB who is a bigger idiot than Sallow, I don't know who it would be. I note that you couldn't refute the truth, so you went with an insult. Grow a pair. Cut and paste the text from the Constitution that guarantees you the right to vote. Don't do like someone else and cut and paste the amendments. I've already explained to the class what those represent. You can't be denied the right to vote based on the items mentioned in the amendments. But you can be denied the right to vote for other reasons. Why? Because you don't have a right to vote beyond what your state decides. Now, the list is pretty small these days on exclusions across the board, but don't mistake that for a "right" to vote. Like I said earlier, this should be easy for a brainiac like you. Simply post the right enumerated in the constitution. The class will wait.

 

[Sallow]

I have heard quite a few right wingers on this forum argue that voting is not a right during debates about forcing you to carry national identity papers.

It's amazing their heads don't explode from getting their own totalitarian streaks more twisted than a pretzel.

This should be easy for you to do. Point to the wording in the US Constitution that states the explicit right to vote. You know, like free speech, bearing arms, etc. You're not going to find it because it doesn't exist. The only thing you're going to find are amendments that say what you can NOT use as an exclusion to voting such as color, gender, etc. The decision about who can vote is left to the states, not the federal government. There is only ONE national election, all the rest are local to the states. The state decides who can and cannot vote as long as it doesn't violate amendments that say what items states can't use as an exclusion. Some state don't let convicted felons vote....even if they are a 35 year old black female. So, show us where the "right" to vote is in the Constitution.

Sure.

15th Amendment
Amendment XV
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


Amendment XIX
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

26th Amendment
Amendment XXVI
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

Anymore stupid questions?

Are you trying to help me? That's new. You posted exactly what I said. The amendments say you can't deny the right to vote based on age, sex or race. It didn't say you had the right to vote. You see, if the constitution said you had the right, the amendments saying what could not be used to exclude you from voting wouldn't be needed at all. Your state can refuse you the right to vote based on anything they want except for what those amendments spell out. You might want to think this over. You're welcome.

You're an idiot.

Done here.

Typically, I would have a lot of respect for your opinion because if there is anyone at USMB who is a bigger idiot than Sallow, I don't know who it would be. I note that you couldn't refute the truth, so you went with an insult. Grow a pair. Cut and paste the text from the Constitution that guarantees you the right to vote. Don't do like someone else and cut and paste the amendments. I've already explained to the class what those represent. You can't be denied the right to vote based on the items mentioned in the amendments. But you can be denied the right to vote for other reasons. Why? Because you don't have a right to vote beyond what your state decides. Now, the list is pretty small these days on exclusions across the board, but don't mistake that for a "right" to vote. Like I said earlier, this should be easy for a brainiac like you. Simply post the right enumerated in the constitution. The class will wait.

It's says in each amendment it's a RIGHT.

It's in English it's not in some foreign language.

This is not something that really requires much cognition to realize.

 

[easyt65]

"SURPRISE! Totalitarian Liberals Want to Make it MANDATORY TO VOTE"


This is HILARIOUS! The Democrats got their collective asses handed to them in 2014 - in record-setting, historical fashion - in large part due to record-setting low voter turn-out. Their own base/members were so disgusted with them that they refused to show at the polls.

So now, fueled with all those 'sour grapes', instead of taking an introspective view and deciding to give the people 'a better product, Liberals want to FORCE people to come to the polls, hold their noses, and vote 'DNC'.

 

[hazlnut]

CHIOCE is only good to a so called: progressive/lib/socialdemocrat when it comes to the killing of the unborn. other than that you WILL do as they say OR ELSE. Progressive stands for FASCIST

snip:
November 3, 2015 by Aleister

If progressives get their way, you will be forced to participate in the American election process and you will like it.

Choosing to stay home on election day will no longer be an option. For people who claim to believe in choice, the left sure loves force.

Just yesterday, this was published at the liberal outlet The Atlantic:

A Feasible Roadmap to Compulsory Voting

Not enough people vote. It’s a perennial source of concern in American politics. There’s no shortage of reforms designed to address the problem, but one idea that seems particularly promising, at least in theory, is compulsory voting. It would produce much higher turnout for the obvious reason that it requires people to vote. It’s long been dismissed, though, as an impossible pipe dream, unlikely to ever happen in the United States. But if reformers were to start at the municipal level, they could set into motion forces that might lead to its nationwide adoption.

Start with some statistics: In years with presidential elections, voter turnout peaks at just above 60 percent. In off-year elections, turnout dips to 40 percent or less. In November 2014, only 36 percent of eligible voters went to the polls—the lowest share in more than 70 years. Participation this paltry calls into question the political system’s legitimacy. It also hints that election outcomes might be quite different if more people bothered to show up.

Gee. Where did they get that idea?

CNN reported in March of this year:

Obama: Maybe it’s time for mandatory voting

all of it here:
SURPRISE! Totalitarian Liberals Want to Make it MANDATORY TO VOTE - Progressives Today

Yeah, you conservative hate it when the blacks and Mexicans and young people and college educated people show up.

Guess what, it's only getting worse for you.

 

[Sallow]

"SURPRISE! Totalitarian Liberals Want to Make it MANDATORY TO VOTE"


This is HILARIOUS! The Democrats got their collective asses handed to them in 2014 - in record-setting, historical fashion - in large part due to record-setting low voter turn-out. Their own base/members were so disgusted with them that they refused to show at the polls.

So now, fueled with all those 'sour grapes', instead of taking an introspective view and deciding to give the people 'a better product, Liberals want to FORCE people to come to the polls, hold their noses, and vote 'DNC'.

30% of the people that could actually vote, did so.

That's not really good or healthy.

 

[Rustic]

Compulsory voting is SUCH a ridiculous notion -- especially in a Republic, such as ours, which was founded on the basic precepts of freedom and liberty.

When you convert a right into an obligation, it ceases to be a "right."

I have heard quite a few right wingers on this forum argue that voting is not a right during debates about forcing you to carry national identity papers.

It's amazing their heads don't explode from getting their own totalitarian streaks more twisted than a pretzel.

This should be easy for you to do. Point to the wording in the US Constitution that states the explicit right to vote. You know, like free speech, bearing arms, etc. You're not going to find it because it doesn't exist. The only thing you're going to find are amendments that say what you can NOT use as an exclusion to voting such as color, gender, etc. The decision about who can vote is left to the states, not the federal government. There is only ONE national election, all the rest are local to the states. The state decides who can and cannot vote as long as it doesn't violate amendments that say what items states can't use as an exclusion. Some state don't let convicted felons vote....even if they are a 35 year old black female. So, show us where the "right" to vote is in the Constitution.

Sure.

15th Amendment
Amendment XV
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


Amendment XIX
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

26th Amendment
Amendment XXVI
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

Anymore stupid questions?

Are you trying to help me? That's new. You posted exactly what I said. The amendments say you can't deny the right to vote based on age, sex or race. It didn't say you had the right to vote. You see, if the constitution said you had the right, the amendments saying what could not be used to exclude you from voting wouldn't be needed at all. Your state can refuse you the right to vote based on anything they want except for what those amendments spell out. You might want to think this over. You're welcome.

You're an idiot.

Done here.

...the bed wetting continues

 

[easyt65]

30% of the people that could actually vote, did so.

That's not really good or healthy.

But the government FORCING people to do something - like buying a government-created product or voting - is 'really good' and/or 'healthy'?!

...look, the approval ratings for the Democrats, Republicans, President, and Congress are and have been in the toilet for a long time. Instead of listening to the people, instead of representing the people, instead of giving the American people a better 'product' they continue to impose their will on the American people, piss them off, and draw fewer and fewer people who want to vote because the people are almost at the point of saying, "F* it - doesn't matter anyway.'

 

[Sallow]

30% of the people that could actually vote, did so.

That's not really good or healthy.

But the government FORCING people to do something - like buying a government-created product or voting - is 'really good' and/or 'healthy'?!

I was "forced" to register for the armed services when I hit 18.
I was "forced" to sit on a jury.
I am "forced" to pay taxes. And mainly for things I see no need for, like fighter jets and submarines.
I am "forced" to follow laws, many of which tell me what I can and can not ingest, where I can or cannot travel and how I can or cannot conduct business.

We live in a society that has a government. There are pros and cons to that.

 

[easyt65]

We live in a society that has a government. There are pros and cons to that.

So you are saying that since we live in a society that has a government it is okay for the government to 'flip the script' and force Americans to work for and obey them rather than the American people controlling their government?!

That's the reason we have RIGHTS, checks and balances, etc...The government has already declared citizens MUST buy a government-created product or be punished...which is B$. If people want to take that as a sign that they are now nothing but slaves who have to obey government edicts then good look to them. As for me, I don't buy that crap and will oppose it.

 

[Sallow]

We live in a society that has a government. There are pros and cons to that.

So you are saying that since we live in a society that has a government it is okay for the government to 'flip the script' and force Americans to work for and obey them rather than the American people controlling their government?!

That's the reason we have RIGHTS, checks and balances, etc...The government has already declared citizens MUST buy a government-created product or be punished...which is B$. If people want to take that as a sign that they are now nothing but slaves who have to obey government edicts then good look to them. As for me, I don't buy that crap and will oppose it.

What government created product?

And good luck with that. I hate those jury notices

 

[Sallow]

I have heard quite a few right wingers on this forum argue that voting is not a right during debates about forcing you to carry national identity papers.

It's amazing their heads don't explode from getting their own totalitarian streaks more twisted than a pretzel.

This should be easy for you to do. Point to the wording in the US Constitution that states the explicit right to vote. You know, like free speech, bearing arms, etc. You're not going to find it because it doesn't exist. The only thing you're going to find are amendments that say what you can NOT use as an exclusion to voting such as color, gender, etc. The decision about who can vote is left to the states, not the federal government. There is only ONE national election, all the rest are local to the states. The state decides who can and cannot vote as long as it doesn't violate amendments that say what items states can't use as an exclusion. Some state don't let convicted felons vote....even if they are a 35 year old black female. So, show us where the "right" to vote is in the Constitution.

Sure.

15th Amendment
Amendment XV
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


Amendment XIX
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

26th Amendment
Amendment XXVI
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

Anymore stupid questions?

Are you trying to help me? That's new. You posted exactly what I said. The amendments say you can't deny the right to vote based on age, sex or race. It didn't say you had the right to vote. You see, if the constitution said you had the right, the amendments saying what could not be used to exclude you from voting wouldn't be needed at all. Your state can refuse you the right to vote based on anything they want except for what those amendments spell out. You might want to think this over. You're welcome.

You're an idiot.

Done here.

...the bed wetting continues

So you woke up in a wet bed?

Thank me later.

 

[easyt65]

What government created product?

And good luck with that. I hate those jury notices

WHAT government-created product? The ACA, of course.

As rightfully deemed 'LIE OF THE YEAR', Obama KNEW before he ever pitched the ACA that there was no way in HELL any American was going to be able to KEEP their CHOSEN health coverage because OBAMA and Liberals created in the legislation a MINIMUM of what HAD to be in EVERY health insurance plan. That means the GOVERNMENT was very MUCH involved in the design and creation of 'the product' - health insurance plans.

Americans just didn't have to 'buy insurance'. MILLIONS of Americans already HAD health insurance, so why the hell did the government have to target THEM? The problem was the people who were NOT covered - so why not create the ACA to make it mandatory for all people WITHOUT healthcare to buy healthcare?

No, the system was a Ponzi scheme from the start: Destroy the previous health care system, sign everyone onto the newly-created government plan where the young (who need health care the least) will supplement / fund health care for the elderly (who need it more).

But the ACA mandated insurance has a government-mandated MINIMUM level / coverage ALL policies had/have to have. Once they specified what that minimum was they then made it the law that everyone has/has to buy it. ...although there are some who still refuse to do so - maybe he should have included prison time to go along with that tax?!

 

[Sallow]

What government created product?

And good luck with that. I hate those jury notices

WHAT government-created product? The ACA, of course.

As rightfully deemed 'LIE OF THE YEAR', Obama KNEW before he ever pitched the ACA that there was no way in HELL any American was going to be able to KEEP their CHOSEN health coverage because OBAMA and Liberals created in the legislation a MINIMUM of what HAD to be in EVERY health insurance plan. That means the GOVERNMENT was very MUCH involved in the design and creation of 'the product' - health insurance plans.

Americans just didn't have to 'buy insurance'. MILLIONS of Americans already HAD health insurance, so why the hell did the government have to target THEM? The problem was the people who were NOT covered - so why not create the ACA to make it mandatory for all people WITHOUT healthcare to buy healthcare?

No, the system was a Ponzi scheme from the start: Destroy the previous health care system, sign everyone onto the newly-created government plan where the young (who need health care the least) will supplement / fund health care for the elderly (who need it more).

But the ACA mandated insurance has a government-mandated MINIMUM level / coverage ALL policies had/have to have. Once they specified what that minimum was they then made it the law that everyone has/has to buy it. ...although there are some who still refuse to do so - maybe he should have included prison time to go along with that tax?!

ACA isn't government generated.

You still are buy policies from private companies.

 

[easyt65]

ACA isn't government generated.

You still are buy policies from private companies.

The PRODUCT - ACA-mandated insurance - was DEFINED, its minimum established by - the Obama administration.

If I tell you that you HAVE to buy a laptop from any company you want but dictate to every company out there that they HAVE to include a special pop-up window that promotes some agenda I am pushing that means I have just helped design every laptop that will be sold.

This is what Obama / Liberals did with the ACA.

 

[Rustic]

What government created product?

And good luck with that. I hate those jury notices

WHAT government-created product? The ACA, of course.

As rightfully deemed 'LIE OF THE YEAR', Obama KNEW before he ever pitched the ACA that there was no way in HELL any American was going to be able to KEEP their CHOSEN health coverage because OBAMA and Liberals created in the legislation a MINIMUM of what HAD to be in EVERY health insurance plan. That means the GOVERNMENT was very MUCH involved in the design and creation of 'the product' - health insurance plans.

Americans just didn't have to 'buy insurance'. MILLIONS of Americans already HAD health insurance, so why the hell did the government have to target THEM? The problem was the people who were NOT covered - so why not create the ACA to make it mandatory for all people WITHOUT healthcare to buy healthcare?

No, the system was a Ponzi scheme from the start: Destroy the previous health care system, sign everyone onto the newly-created government plan where the young (who need health care the least) will supplement / fund health care for the elderly (who need it more).

But the ACA mandated insurance has a government-mandated MINIMUM level / coverage ALL policies had/have to have. Once they specified what that minimum was they then made it the law that everyone has/has to buy it. ...although there are some who still refuse to do so - maybe he should have included prison time to go along with that tax?!

ACA isn't government generated.

You still are buy policies from private companies.

No, your extorted by the federal government thru private companies...

 

[Sallow]

ACA isn't government generated.

You still are buy policies from private companies.

The PRODUCT - ACA-mandated insurance - was DEFINED, its minimum established by - the Obama administration.

If I tell you that you HAVE to buy a laptop from any company you want but dictate to every company out there that they HAVE to include a special pop-up window that promotes some agenda I am pushing that means I have just helped design every laptop that will be sold.

This is what Obama / Liberals did with the ACA.

It still isn't government "generated" insurance.

The ACA is more a list of regulations for insurance companies in terms of treatment of clients and a mandate for citizens to have insurance.

It was crafted by the Heritage foundation as an alternative to "HillaryCare".

And it was used by Mitt Romney.

 

[easyt65]

It still isn't government "generated" insurance..

The government designed what every plan must have.
The government then generated the mandated requirement to have it.

So HOW is it not government-generated again?

 

[Rustic]

ACA isn't government generated.

You still are buy policies from private companies.

The PRODUCT - ACA-mandated insurance - was DEFINED, its minimum established by - the Obama administration.

If I tell you that you HAVE to buy a laptop from any company you want but dictate to every company out there that they HAVE to include a special pop-up window that promotes some agenda I am pushing that means I have just helped design every laptop that will be sold.

This is what Obama / Liberals did with the ACA.

It still isn't government "generated" insurance.

The ACA is more a list of regulations for insurance companies in terms of treatment of clients and a mandate for citizens to have insurance.

It was crafted by the Heritage foundation as an alternative to "HillaryCare".

And it was used by Mitt Romney.

"It was used by mitt" makes it all the more wrong... Rinos have no common sense...

 

[Delta4Embassy]

CHIOCE is only good to a so called: progressive/lib/socialdemocrat when it comes to the killing of the unborn. other than that you WILL do as they say OR ELSE. Progressive stands for FASCIST

snip:
November 3, 2015 by Aleister

If progressives get their way, you will be forced to participate in the American election process and you will like it.

Choosing to stay home on election day will no longer be an option. For people who claim to believe in choice, the left sure loves force.

Just yesterday, this was published at the liberal outlet The Atlantic:

A Feasible Roadmap to Compulsory Voting

Not enough people vote. It’s a perennial source of concern in American politics. There’s no shortage of reforms designed to address the problem, but one idea that seems particularly promising, at least in theory, is compulsory voting. It would produce much higher turnout for the obvious reason that it requires people to vote. It’s long been dismissed, though, as an impossible pipe dream, unlikely to ever happen in the United States. But if reformers were to start at the municipal level, they could set into motion forces that might lead to its nationwide adoption.

Start with some statistics: In years with presidential elections, voter turnout peaks at just above 60 percent. In off-year elections, turnout dips to 40 percent or less. In November 2014, only 36 percent of eligible voters went to the polls—the lowest share in more than 70 years. Participation this paltry calls into question the political system’s legitimacy. It also hints that election outcomes might be quite different if more people bothered to show up.

Gee. Where did they get that idea?

CNN reported in March of this year:

Obama: Maybe it’s time for mandatory voting

all of it here:
SURPRISE! Totalitarian Liberals Want to Make it MANDATORY TO VOTE - Progressives Today

This came up a few years ago and looking into it, many countries have mandatory voting. And the result's voting for "Dave the Barber," "My pet hamster Houie" and the like. Wiki's got a page about 'compulsory voting' think it is.

 

[easyt65]

Just curious...what again is the Liberal's proposed punishment for NOT voting?
- A Punitive Fine...er, I mean a 'Tax'

- Banning them rom voting in the future (No counter-productive...maybe forcing them to vote TWICE in the next election?! )

- Forced to house an illegal immigrant family or Syrian 'refugees'

....?