SURPRISE! Totalitarian Liberals Want to Make it MANDATORY TO VOTE

[TNHarley]

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

it is not "totalitarian", nutty steffie....

there are many countries where people are fined if they don't vote.

i know you hate the idea that you're part of a teeny tiny wackjob minority.

you should probably get over it and go back to collecting your government checks.

Just because someone else does it doesn't make it something else..

except it isn't totalitarian. totalitarian would be if they make you vote a certain way.

That post explains a lot..

what? that i know what totalitarianism is?

you can't just throw around words... they have meaning. and not liking something doesn't make it naziism, totalitarianism, slavery or any of the other words the right likes to toss around with impunity.

sometimes it is far more appropriate to say "i don't agree".

without going all loony like the wacky o/p

That is exactly what totalitarianism is, Jilly.

 

[BluesLegend]

If you fail to vote you will be deemed to have voted for the majority party in your district, the left would wet themselves over that one.

 

[kaz]

because, you know, assuring that people vote is "totalitarianism", but telling me what i can and can't do with my body isn't???

butt backwards. seriously.

Forcing people to vote under penalty of law is totalitarianism. What's butt backwards is someone with the education you claim to have being too dimwitted to understand that.

In any case, squabbling about this is a waste of time since it will never happen as a such a mandate would be unconstitutional.

Not according to Roberts if they fine anyone who doesn't vote on their tax form

 

[Sallow]

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

Yup.

Just like these totalitarian countries.

22 countries where voting is mandatory

Which of them do you hate the most, Step?

 

[SwimExpert]

or pay the $25

Which really creates a crazy dilemma for liberals. You oppose voter ID laws because poor people might not be able to afford a $25 ID card, or have transportation to the DMV. But you want to make voting mandatory. And when poor people don't have transportation to a polling site, they'll get slapped with a $25 fine they can't afford.

 

[Sallow]

I'd be in favor of a literacy test, PROOF of citizenship and VOTER ID....but only after we deport all the illegals, the syrians and somalian "refugees".

And none of that is in the Constitution.

What is in the Constitution? Is the right to vote.

 

[Sallow]

or pay the $25

Which really creates a crazy dilemma for liberals. You oppose voter ID laws because poor people might not be able to afford a $25 ID card, or have transportation to the DMV. But you want to make voting mandatory. And when poor people don't have transportation to a polling site, they'll get slapped with a $25 fine they can't afford.

Which would be easily fixed by internet voting.

Which you can do from home, an internet kiosk or library.

 

[jillian]

because, you know, assuring that people vote is "totalitarianism", but telling me what i can and can't do with my body isn't???

butt backwards. seriously.

Forcing people to vote under penalty of law is totalitarianism. What's butt backwards is someone with the education you claim to have being too dimwitted to understand that.

In any case, squabbling about this is a waste of time since it will never happen as a such a mandate would be unconstitutional.

again, your repeating the adjective does not make it applicable.

i've pointed out why your use of the term is inappropriate.

you might disagree, but there is nothing unconstitutional about it.
it is, however, unconstitutional for the state to interfere with women's control of their own bodies within the parameters set by roe v wade as further defined in planned parenthood v casey.

that never seems to bother people on the right.

you need to choose your words more carefully. your not liking something, again, does not make it totalitarianism, naziism, facism, slavery, unconstitutional or anything else that you dislike. it is simply that you disagree.

but that doesn't sound as hand-wringing and drama queen, does it?

 

[OKTexas]

Dipshit OP writer has the uniform wrong. It was the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact which had compulsory voting, not Nazi Germany.

Just another historically ignorant dumb fuck who thinks Nazis are left wing.


22 countries where voting is mandatory

Can't say I'd want to live in any of them.

 

[jillian]

I'd be in favor of a literacy test, PROOF of citizenship and VOTER ID....but only after we deport all the illegals, the syrians and somalian "refugees".

of corse you would... because that is actually unconstitutional.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

because, you know, assuring that people vote is "totalitarianism", but telling me what i can and can't do with my body isn't???

butt backwards. seriously.

Forcing people to vote under penalty of law is totalitarianism. What's butt backwards is someone with the education you claim to have being too dimwitted to understand that.

In any case, squabbling about this is a waste of time since it will never happen as a such a mandate would be unconstitutional.

again, your repeating the adjective does not make it applicable.

Correct, it's simply the truth.

you might disagree, but there is nothing unconstitutional about it.

It is brazenly unconstitutional as there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to force people to vote in elections.

 

[mdk]

Vote Snoopy in 2016.

Snoopy and Woodstock's relationships is far too close for my comfort. Do you see the way they look at each other? Two closet old queens. lol

 

[PaintMyHouse]

or pay the $25

Which really creates a crazy dilemma for liberals. You oppose voter ID laws because poor people might not be able to afford a $25 ID card, or have transportation to the DMV. But you want to make voting mandatory. And when poor people don't have transportation to a polling site, they'll get slapped with a $25 fine they can't afford.

1. Issue them ID, then ask for it.
2. That's why if we did such a thing it should be a tax beak not a fine.

 

[SwimExpert]

Which would be easily fixed by internet voting.

Which you can do from home, an internet kiosk or library.

Have you heard about hacking? The internet is not safe. It is not secure. Nothing on the internet is guaranteed.

 

[Stephanie]

... or even a 16 year old voting for your life's decisions?

In all fairness we have that now in the White House.

true unfortunately

 

[jillian]

because, you know, assuring that people vote is "totalitarianism", but telling me what i can and can't do with my body isn't???

butt backwards. seriously.

Forcing people to vote under penalty of law is totalitarianism. What's butt backwards is someone with the education you claim to have being too dimwitted to understand that.

In any case, squabbling about this is a waste of time since it will never happen as a such a mandate would be unconstitutional.

again, your repeating the adjective does not make it applicable.

Correct, it's simply the truth.

no. it is your opinion.

but thanks for leaving out the rest of what i said because you can't just say "i disagree".

lol.

 

[Rotagilla]

I'd be in favor of a literacy test, PROOF of citizenship and VOTER ID....but only after we deport all the illegals, the syrians and somalian "refugees".

And none of that is in the Constitution.

What is in the Constitution? Is the right to vote.

mandatory voting isn't in the constitution either..but that's what we're talking about here, son...Why do you ALWAYS try to change the subject? You're merely another hyperpartisan agitator with no solid positions other than supporting anything that agitates the opposition.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

because, you know, assuring that people vote is "totalitarianism", but telling me what i can and can't do with my body isn't???

butt backwards. seriously.

Forcing people to vote under penalty of law is totalitarianism. What's butt backwards is someone with the education you claim to have being too dimwitted to understand that.

In any case, squabbling about this is a waste of time since it will never happen as a such a mandate would be unconstitutional.

it doesn;t interfere
again, your repeating the adjective does not make it applicable.

i've pointed out why your use of the term is inappropriate.

you might disagree, but there is nothing unconstitutional about it.
it is, however, unconstitutional for the state to interfere with women's control of their own bodies within the parameters set by roe v wade as further defined in planned parenthood v casey.

that never seems to bother people on the right.

you need to choose your words more carefully. your not liking something, again, does not make it totalitarianiwm, naziism, facism, slavery, unconstitutional or anything else that you dislike. it is simply that you disagree.

but that doesn't sound as hand-wringing and drama queen, does it?

Jilly... nowhere is it written that states must fund PP... and in not funding, it doesn't interfere with a woman's ability to control their own body. That's just stupid... even for you.

 

[Sallow]

Which would be easily fixed by internet voting.

Which you can do from home, an internet kiosk or library.

Have you heard about hacking? The internet is not safe. It is not secure. Nothing on the internet is guaranteed.

I work in IT. I spent 13.5 years at the NYSE. We tracked billions of trades which were far more complex than the data you find in voting.

The type of voting protocols we have NOW are far more subject to abuse. Especially mail ins..

Yet? Conservatives seem to love voting by mail.

 

[jillian]

or pay the $25

Which really creates a crazy dilemma for liberals. You oppose voter ID laws because poor people might not be able to afford a $25 ID card, or have transportation to the DMV. But you want to make voting mandatory. And when poor people don't have transportation to a polling site, they'll get slapped with a $25 fine they can't afford.

1. Issue them ID, then ask for it.
2. That's why if we did such a thing it should be a tax beak not a fine.

no.

and people who don't itemize (which is most people) do not benefit from "Tax Breaks".

which is probably why you like that concept. but again another effort at defunding government.

cute.