Obama wants mandatory voting

[Intoxiklown]

Source: http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/274408-obamas-solution-money-politics-completely-change-political-map/


President Obama gave support to mandatory voting today at a town hall event in Cleveland. The President claims the drastic move would reduce the importance of money in elections and stop alleged voter suppression.

The Washington Times reports on the President’s claim that mandatory voting would change everything:

“It would be transformative if everybody voted. That would counteract [campaign] money more than anything. If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country.”




I wonder what the penalty would be for failing to vote?

[AuH20]

Hell no. The exponential boobus factor would be disastrous.

[acptulsa]

“It would be transformative if everybody voted. That would counteract [campaign] money more than anything.

Damn it. My bullshit meter just broke.

[Anti Federalist]

Just like the old USSR.

Get in line comrade, enjoy your mandatory democracy.

[Southron]

Too many people vote now who have no business doing so.

[Henry Rogue]

Source: http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/274408-obamas-solution-money-politics-completely-change-political-map/

I wonder what the penalty would be for failing to vote?
They'll put the offenders in prison with all the other non voters.

[Natural Citizen]

If they add a "None Of The Above" option to the ballot then screw it. Why not? That'll learn 'em.

[Keith and stuff]

A very small percentage of people vote in some local elections. Less than 10% of eligible voters voting is common. It would be really interesting if almost every voter had no idea what an election was about.

[Henry Rogue]

Too many people vote now who have no business doing so.

There's only two ways one can vote, to aggress or in self defense.

[phill4paul]

And for those that already vote a "vote harder" mandate.

"So Obama what have we got? A Republic or a monarchy?" "A Democracy. If we can enforce it."

[Root]

If you like your vote, you can keep your vote...

[tangent4ronpaul]

A very small percentage of people vote in some local elections. Less than 10% of eligible voters voting is common. It would be really interesting if almost every voter had no idea what an election was about.

Hmmm.. Think I would change my name to Mr. Cknin Evrypot and run for Congress :D

Who wants to be Mr. Freem Oney?

or Ms. Nota Xes?

-t

[UWDude]

I think a boycott of 2016 is in order.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

So can I vote against this mandatory voting proposal?

[heavenlyboy34]

Too many people vote now who have no business doing so.

This^^ I still say there should be a test for voting like there is for driving or flying planes.

[acptulsa]

So can I vote against this mandatory voting proposal?

Of course not.

The sociopaths are going to vote on whether or not to vote for forcing you to vote for them so they can vote to force you to vote for them.

Why? Because of the opposite of what Obama said--these people who can't be bothered now will merely vote for the name they've heard the most, which means the one with the most money--and because they're narcissists and they need the reassurance and the attention.


This^^ I still say there should be a test for voting like there is for driving or flying planes.

Dear Visiting Liberals--He really doesn't know he's advocating for Jim Crow-style 'Literary Tests'. Don't blame us--you people took over the schools...

[Danke]

Politicians must have perceived legitimacy.

More and more, fewer people are voting. This is a problem for the oligarchs to say they have a mandate from the people.

[heavenlyboy34]

Dear Visiting Liberals--He really doesn't know he's advocating for Jim Crow-style 'Literary Tests'. Don't blame us--you people took over the schools...
:rolleyes: Here again, members of Cult Of Democracy rear their ugly heads and attempts to pummel us with absurdities for daring to question the Cult, its Priesthood, saints, etc. Do you really think it unreasonable to expect a person wielding a vote-that thing that is supposedly a great weapon-to have a certain basic knowledge? You know, things like civics, economics, and so forth that are directly relevant to voting? There are higher standards for operating a citizen's automobile than for wielding voting power. That's just sad.

[Natural Citizen]

:rolleyes: Here again, members of Cult Of Democracy rear their ugly heads and attempts to pummel us with absurdities for daring to question the Cult, its Priesthood, saints, etc.

Well. Heh. In his defense...




If we can fool the people into doing what's good for them, then by God, count me in.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?470936-Why-libertarians-who-want-to-write-off-Rand-Paul-over-the-Tom-Cotton-letter-are&p=5814265&viewfull=1#post5814265

:rolleyes:

[acptulsa]

:rolleyes: Here again, members of Cult Of Democracy rear their ugly heads and attempts to pummel us with absurdities for daring to question the Cult, its Priesthood, saints, etc. Do you really think it unreasonable to expect a person wielding a vote-that thing that is supposedly a great weapon-to have a certain basic knowledge? You know, things like civics, economics, and so forth that are directly relevant to voting? There are higher standards for operating a citizen's automobile than for wielding voting power. That's just sad.

What's just sad is a self-professed anarchist trusting the government to institute some kind of law mandating some kind of process for screening voters--and expecting it to weed out someone besides the least brainwashed potential voters.

[heavenlyboy34]

What's just sad is a self-professed anarchist trusting the government to institute some kind of law mandating some kind of process for screening voters--and expecting it to weed out someone besides the least brainwashed potential voters.

1) I don't self-profess any particular label, though I have anarchist and other leanings.
2) It doesn't follow that only allowing people with very basic civic knowledge (which they should know by voting age anyway, if the schools were worth with bricks they're made of) to vote will cause the most brainwashed to "rise to the top", as it were. In the old days, a certification of this knowledge was standard and had a name-a high school diploma. When Americans are again among the best educated people in the world as they were in Bastiat's time, I'll declare a test is no longer necessary.

[acptulsa]

1) I don't self-profess any particular label, though I have anarchist and other leanings.
2) It doesn't follow that only allowing people with very basic civic knowledge (which they should know by voting age anyway, if the schools were worth with bricks they're made of) to vote will cause the most brainwashed to "rise to the top", as it were. In the old days, a certification of this knowledge was standard and had a name-a high school diploma. When Americans are again among the best educated people in the world as they were in Bastiat's time, I'll declare a test is no longer necessary.

A minute ago you were accusing me of being a cultist and bowing to the priesthood, and now you're exhibiting a childlike faith in their pollworkers to turn away only who should be turned away (even after you make law enforcement officers of them by giving them a law to enforce) and another childlike faith in high school sheepskins awarded to their standards.

I've now been accused of being two far right and too far left--by the same person, in the same thread, all between post 18 and post 21 inclusive. Make up your mind.

And to think my daddy taught me only women could change their minds that fast...

[jkr]

SURE
they will MAKE you \/ote for winch hole they will fuck you in...but none of the abo\/e wont be running.

http://gesvol.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/votefornoneoftheabovee.jpg

SHALL WE RAISE "TAXES" 30%
OR 40%?

[ZENemy]

FORCEOCRACY!!

[TheTexan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pSh0VAVYn4

[acesfull]

This^^ I still say there should be a test for voting like there is for driving or flying planes.

Indeed +1--- A seventeen year old genius cannot vote however a 30 year old idiot can..

Acesfull

[Origanalist]

Holy_shit. So Dear Leader will get 95% of the vote.

[Origanalist]

Mandatory seat belts, mandatory health care, mandatory taxes, mandatory licences, mandatory auto insurance, mandatory inspections... is there anything the government can't make us free 'mericunts do?

[Stratovarious]

YOU CAN KEEP YOUR DOCTOR.

[Stratovarious]

Indeed +1--- A seventeen year old genius cannot vote however a 30 year old idiot can..

Acesfull
Are you playing with a full deck ? Wild cards ?

[Stratovarious]

Source: http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/274408-obamas-solution-money-politics-completely-change-political-map/


...

“..., then it would completely change the political map in this country.”



...


Firing 90% of Congress and Trying Obama and Holder for Treason, would: ''completely change the political map in this country"

, ,

[Stratovarious]

Sorry, my Netflix is down....grrrr.....


, ,

[Origanalist]

Sorry, my Netflix is down....grrrr.....


, ,

Tragic.

[idiom]

Americans voting numbers are disturbing low for a country that prides itself in its democracy.

Your votes are therefore very easy to buy and manipulate.

[Origanalist]

Is it time for mandatory knee pads yet? How about mandatory K-Y Jelly? Or is that going to be only issued to those that wear a uniform?

[Anti Federalist]

Mandatory seat belts, mandatory health care, mandatory taxes, mandatory licences, mandatory auto insurance, mandatory inspections... is there anything the government can't make us free 'mericunts do?

'Mericunts will roll over and BOHICA for just about anything it seems.

Vote harder damn it!

[Origanalist]

'Mericunts will roll over and BOHICA for just about anything it seems.

Vote harder damn it!

One more fucking thing that if he gets passed, and I no longer doubt what he can get away with that the worthless fucks in the GOP will never reverse. I'm not usually one to swear a lot online but just the thought of this pisses me off.

[heavenlyboy34]

A minute ago you were accusing me of being a cultist and bowing to the priesthood, and now you're exhibiting a childlike faith in their pollworkers to turn away only who should be turned away (even after you make law enforcement officers of them by giving them a law to enforce) and another childlike faith in high school sheepskins awarded to their standards.lol I did no such thing. You're funny. :D
I said
2) It doesn't follow that only allowing people with very basic civic knowledge (which they should know by voting age anyway, if the schools were worth with bricks they're made of) to vote will cause the most brainwashed to "rise to the top", as it were. In the old days, a certification of this knowledge was standard and had a name-a high school diploma. When Americans are again among the best educated people in the world as they were in Bastiat's time, I'll declare a test is no longer necessary.
Why you insist on putting words in my mouth, IDK, but it is comical. :D



I've now been accused of being two far right and too far left--by the same person, in the same thread, all between post 18 and post 21 inclusive. Make up your mind.

And to think my daddy taught me only women could change their minds that fast...

You should know by now that "left" and "right" are just different wings of the same bird of prey. Some statist behaviors are characteristic of "right"-ists, some of "left"-ists. I call 'em as I see 'em. I've been called both myself, despite not affiliating with either in any meaningful way. You're not alone in the club, amigo.

P.S. I reviewed this thread in case I forgot something since I spent the last hour in class. Nowhere in this thread (that I can see) have I called you "left" or "right". Not sure where you're getting this stuff...or perhaps trolling?

[heavenlyboy34]

Americans voting numbers are disturbing low for a country that prides itself in its democracy.

Your votes are therefore very easy to buy and manipulate.
I wish they were lower! :P

[UWDude]

This^^ I still say there should be a test for voting like there is for driving or flying planes.

If there were a test for voting, it would be skewed towards shunning free thinkers. Imagine the history questions. LoL

[heavenlyboy34]

If there were a test for voting, it would be skewed towards shunning free thinkers. Imagine the history questions. LoL

LoL! :D I imagine it would be like other tests in US schools: a study guide given out beforehand to memorize and a the test in T/F or multi-choice format. Filled out on a scantron bubble form, of course. There is the problem that you don't get to explain/justify answers to history questions, but IDK if a voting test should be too history-heavy. More civics than history, it seems. It's a dilemma indeed...

[enhanced_deficit]

Ok, I'm making voting in below polls mandatory also effective immediately.

Poll: Would you support Obama impeachment? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?417115-Would-you-support-Obama-impeachment&)

Poll: Do you respect Obama? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?444931-Do-you-respect-Obama&)

[The Free Hornet]

Americans voting numbers are disturbing low for a country that prides itself in its democracy.

Your votes are therefore very easy to buy and manipulate.

What the fuck are you smoking? The founders were anti-democratic because these tendancies are not specific to nationalities, but to human nature. Nonetheless, I'd appreciate it if fuckfaces didn't mischaracterize Americans. Some of us prefer to defend freedom, not cheerlead its destruction from afar.

[idiom]

What the fuck are you smoking? The founders were anti-democratic because these tendancies are not specific to nationalities, but to human nature. Nonetheless, I'd appreciate it if fuckfaces didn't mischaracterize Americans. Some of us prefer to defend freedom, not cheerlead its destruction from afar.

Not cheer leading its destruction.

The myth of the amazing founders and the most amazing constitution ever written are part of the state mythology and part of the power structure. Stop deifying the state. It has a function, its not magic. Treating it with reverence and trust instead of deep suspicion and constant vigilance is one ends up here.

If all the people who protested wars, or tea partied, or OWS'd, or went to Ron Paul Rallies actually showed up to vote the situation would be quite different.

Most of the people who vote are those protecting their pensions and investments, not those protecting their future. Thus the Federal reserve does indeed have a public mandate to shift the wealth from the young to old.

If a tendency to not vote was human nature and not regional and temporal, then there wouldn't be huge disparities in voter engagement.

[cindy25]

nothing will come of this. voting is a state issue. and even if a Federal issue it would never pass the house or senate. I doubt if it would pass even in states with Democratic legislatures.

[Weston White]

So do I understand this correctly? He wants to make it mandatory for all citizens to vote for the people who vote ‘YEA’ on bills that they admittedly have never bothered reading, nor could read even if they had wanted to read, and will very likely never both to read? Why do I feel like I am missing something here?

[Weston White]

Dear Obama:

Hello, I am Billy. I recently read that you would like to make voting mandatory throughout America. I think this is a wonderful! Could we initiate your idea by putting your impeachment, charges of treason, and removal of office to a vote? Because, me and many others, would live to vote you, along with your family, out of the Whitehouse. Thank you.

[CT4Liberty]

Just make it all a Facebook poll and get it over with already...

[Ronin Truth]

Step #1 - Mandatory voting.

Step #2 - Mandatory Democrat voting.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- TJ

[JK/SEA]

ain't gonna happen.

[acptulsa]

LoL! :D I imagine it would be like other tests in US schools: a study guide given out beforehand to memorize and a the test in T/F or multi-choice format. Filled out on a scantron bubble form, of course. There is the problem that you don't get to explain/justify answers to history questions, but IDK if a voting test should be too history-heavy. More civics than history, it seems. It's a dilemma indeed...

Yeah, let's not run history-heavy. Let's not check and see if a person is aware that back in the day southern poll attendants used to hand blacks a copy of Shakespeare and wait until they mispronounced a word, then sent them packing, while handing whites a piece of paper and saying, 'Here is a copy of the Pledge of Allegience. Read the first six words,' before allowing them to vote.

If the test were, 'Read this entire passage written by William Kristol without smirking,' you would fail that test as surely as I would. Now do you understand?

If you get it, good. By all means, don't let your belated understanding of the issue keep you from lobbing half-baked attacks my general direction...


Just make it all a Facebook poll and get it over with already...

This. And why not let the person with the most friend requests have the most votes, too?

[The Gold Standard]

Of course the government would use their poll tests to admit people that will vote their way. The only real answer is simple. Ban voting.

[milgram]

Mandatory voting? Sounds pro-choice to me -- make sure everyone has their choice! :rolleyes:

[paleocon1]

If anything the Electorate should be pruned to include only those who pay their own way- which would not include those working for the State.

[acptulsa]

If anything the Electorate should be pruned to include only those who pay their own way- which would not include those working for the State.

Now that you mention it, there is a lot to be said for disallowing federal employees the vote in federal elections (and local employees in local elections, and so on) for the simple and obvious reason of a conflict of interest.

Brilliant.

[Stratovarious]

Indeed +1--- A seventeen year old genius cannot vote however a 30 year old idiot can..

Acesfull

+ 2 agreed.

Speaking of intelligence , Obama the Constitutional Law Professor, thinks the Federal Government should be in charge
of what citizens buy, and now whether they vote or not, next step is to make sure we are buying the 'correct' toilet paper'.
The great irony of Obama the Professor is that he has no idea what the Constitution is all about.

, ,

[Suzanimal]

Politicians must have perceived legitimacy.

More and more, fewer people are voting. This is a problem for the oligarchs to say they have a mandate from the people.

This ^^^ and vvv this.




Obama Broaches Mandatory Voting
Michael S. Rozeff
...

Didn’t Lincoln free the slaves? Oh, I’m sorry. The U.S. government took over the institution in other forms. So no wonder that a president should ponder extending this venerable institution to mandatory voting. The idea is that you are in a “democracy”. You have a responsibility, according to this theory. But how does this translate into being forced to vote? For this theory to hold water, it must be the case that you are in this “democracy” whether you like it or not, and whether you are a willing participant or not. Isn’t this a form of political slavery?

Mandatory voting would erase the irritating negative signals when 63% (or other large percentages) of the people do not vote in elections. It would by coercion provide the illusion of conferring legitimacy on a government that many people detest and have given up hope on. How convenient for the government.
...

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/obama-broaches-mandatory-voting/


re: Obama Broaches Mandatory Voting
Thomas DiLorenzo

Let’s not forget, Mike, that voting was also mandatory in the Soviet Union. The totalitarian communists used this fact to claim that the regime always had the support of “the people.” That of course is exactly the same argument that all politicians in all democracies use when they insist that it is your HOLY DUTY to vote. It is also the motivation of the totalitarian statist in the White House.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/re-obama-broaches-mandatory-voting/

[randomname]

HIT & RUN BLOG
RSS
Mandatory Voting Is a Terrible—And Insulting—Idea
The political parties have no right to demand our stamp of approval for their elections.

Scott Shackford|Mar. 19, 2015 11:45 am
3179
187

55

Spritz

You're only encouraging them.Credit: ** RCB ** / photo on flickrToward the end of a speech and Q&A session (about an hour and 10 minutes in) in Cleveland yesterday, President Barack Obama spoke a bit about reforming elections, complaining about money in politics, gerrymandering, and the Citizens United decision. One "short term" solution he floated was to make voting mandatory, holding up Australia as an example.

"It would be transformative if everybody voted," he said. "That would counter money more than anything."

No, it wouldn't, not really. Well, first of all, let's backtrack to the idea. Mandatory voting is a violation of our civil rights, just as denying a citizen a right to vote is a violation. Casting a vote is speech. It is showing support or opposition to a candidate or proposal. Making voting mandatory means voting is no longer a right. It's an obligation. It's forced speech. If we were forced to attend a church, but had a choice of several churches, we would still (most of us, anyway) recognize that this is a violation of our freedom to decline to practice religion at all. Not voting isn't just an expression of apathy. It's also a form of protest.

Second, when it comes to campaigning, mandatory voting would indeed probably make the race cheaper—but only for incumbents and entrenched politicians. Institutional inertia benefits incumbents tremendously, and they're rarely tossed out of office. Obama complained about all the television ads during election season. Imagine what it would be like to attempt to challenge an incumbent as an outsider in an environment where you have to assume that everybody is going to vote. How much more money would challengers have to spend to try to reach even more people to counter the natural advantages of incumbents? It's the same problem with attempting to restrict campaign spending. Because incumbents have a history and years of essentially free press covering his or her work in office, challengers sometimes have to be able to raise and spend more to compete against them, assuming the incumbent doesn't have a history of failure, scandal, and incompetence. There's a reason the phrase "the devil you know" gets invoked so frequently when talking about politicians and elections.

Third, Australia's parliamentary system is completely different from America's. They have a proportional voting system, not a "winner takes all" system. Their voting process is very complicated, with voters ranking candidates by preference. Australia has more than two political parties with representation in its parliament, and the voting system sometimes results in the creation of ruling coalitions (right now it's a group of center-right political parties). Comparing America's voting system to Australia's is as silly as comparing it to North Korea's, but for different reasons.

Australia's complicated voting system helped lead to the election of Australia's first libertarian senator, David Leyonhjelm. Despite nominally benefiting from mandatory voting and a prime spot near the top of the ballot, Leyonhjelm blasted mandatory voting in an interview with Reason: "We argue that we have a right to vote, and it's not a right if you get fined for not doing it. So it becomes an obligation, like paying your taxes. You don't have a right to pay your taxes; you have an obligation to pay your taxes, and you get penalized if you don't do it. Voting is in the same category: To pretend it's a right when you can be prosecuted for not doing it is ridiculous."

Here in America, the Democrats and Republicans do everything in their power to keep candidates like Leyonhjelm off the ballots, which would make mandatory voting the equivalent of finding your local convenience store coolers stocked with nothing but Coke and Pepsi. In California, the state has instituted a top-two-only run-off open primary system for many races, and in November's election, in six Congressional races, voters in those districts only had the choice between two candidates from the same party. Would you like Coke or Diet Coke?

Obama would have us believe that mandatory voting somehow gives more power to the citizenry, but in fact, it treats the citizenry as the servants of the political parties. Recall last fall when operatives for political parties sent out sinister messages to voters warning them that whether they voted or not was a public record and that they would be "interested to hear" why somebody might not have voted. As I said at the time, these methods absolve the political parties of having to find better candidates that would actually inspire people to go to the polls. Imagine what sort of insipid, lackluster candidates we'll get in mandatory elections and what they'll say or do or promise to try to get the support of people who currently do not feel enough interest to even bother.

To bounce back to Australia for a moment, today Leyonhjelm is reintroducing his bill to try to legalize gay marriage recognition down under. Part of the process of getting this legislation passed in Australia is convincing one of the coalition parties to allow its legislators to have a conscience vote, meaning these men and women will decide how to vote rather than the party. Even though polls show Australians are in favor of gay marriage recognition in higher numbers than here in the United States, Leyonhjelm has to lobby for members of one party to vote how they want to vote, not how the party tells them they have to vote.

And finally, for obvious reasons, Obama fails to engage in why special interests spend so much money on elections in the first place: The federal government is very, very powerful, and it has grown in size and scope under him. The federal government has its hooks in every single thing we do as citizens and in every single thing every business does as well. Election turnouts aren't going to change this. It might even heighten it if candidates end up promising all sorts of new programs to appeal to voters who would have otherwise not even bothered under the current system. The Obama administration and its agencies' willingness to regulate just about anything under the sun fosters an environment where not only does it pay off for labor and corporate interests to spend money to influence incomes, sometimes it's—well—mandatory.

[acesfull]

+ 2 agreed.

Speaking of intelligence , Obama the Constitutional Law Professor, thinks the Federal Government should be in charge
of what citizens buy, and now whether they vote or not, next step is to make sure we are buying the 'correct' toilet paper'.
The great irony of Obama the Professor is that he has no idea what the Constitution is all about.

, ,

There was a time when I thought a "Harvard law degree" meant something, Obama has changed my thinking on said University degree.

Acesfull

[heavenlyboy34]

Yeah, let's not run history-heavy. Let's not check and see if a person is aware that back in the day southern poll attendants used to hand blacks a copy of Shakespeare and wait until they mispronounced a word, then sent them packing, while handing whites a piece of paper and saying, 'Here is a copy of the Pledge of Allegience. Read the first six words,' before allowing them to vote.

If the test were, 'Read this entire passage written by William Kristol without smirking,' you would fail that test as surely as I would. Now do you understand?

If you get it, good. By all means, don't let your belated understanding of the issue keep you from lobbing half-baked attacks my general direction...


I haven't attacked you personally. Your opinion, certainly. That's how debate works. But I have gotten an awful lot of snark and condescension from you. I call that a bit of a double standard and hypocrisy on your part, but do as you will. You still have some free speech rights on this forum.

I don't believe I have a misunderstanding of the issue-belated or otherwise. I understand the failure of popular elections all too well. It is impossible for me to justify democracy as we know it (it simply doesn't work from a libertarian sort of POV), but I gave it a good honest try. It ain't easy being a devil's advocate. That I seem to have failed says many, many more bad things about democracy and the various related systems such as Republicanism than about me.

[heavenlyboy34]

h/t to TPL from the Women's Day thread for this. Pertinent to the thread.




Again, the right to vote is not real liberty. Democracy leads to an ever-expanding bureaucracy, and the idea of universal suffrage is a major reason why. Women aren't the only people to blame for this, but they are partially responsible. Giving women the vote has had deleterious effects on the Western World, darlin'. So has giving voting rights to every plebe who hasn't committed a felony. Libertarians need to realize that the pro-demotist propaganda they've been fed is largely full of shit. It was not some great act of progress to give every individual the vote; on the contrary, every result you can name that has arisen from having a female voting block has been a negative.

[Stratovarious]

There was a time when I thought a "Harvard law degree" meant something, Obama has changed my thinking on said University degree.

Acesfull

I once respected the office of President, someone got pissed at me in a staff meeting when I called B# to Obama's MANDATED HEALTH CARE, "well you do respect the office of the President of the US dont you ..." quipped the economics teacher, I said sure but not with Obama behind the desk.

There was one statement Obama has made in 6 years that I agreed with, for the life of me I can't remember it.

, ,

[JK/SEA]

I once respected the office of President, someone got pissed at me in a staff meeting when I called B# to Obama's MANDATED HEALTH CARE, "well you do respect the office of the President of the US dont you ..." quipped the economics teacher, I said sure but not with Obama behind the desk.

There was one statement Obama has made in 6 years that I agreed with, for the life of me I can't remember it.

, ,

yeah, lots of people have a hard time wrapping their brain around the fact that the office of the U.S. President became a puppet chair after the Federal Reserve Act became reality.

[Stratovarious]

yeah, lots of people have a hard time wrapping their brain around the fact that the office of the U.S. President became a puppet chair after the Federal Reserve Act became reality.

Fed Act 1 1910
Jekyll Island GA lol ....should have been a tip off.



, ,

[otherone]

If everyone has to vote, we'll all be be MORE free!
FINALLY someone is doing something productive.
Democrats may even have to vote TWICE.

[acptulsa]

Democrats may even have to vote TWICE.

That's just silly. How can you say such a thing?

Democrats only vote once per election, just like everyone else. For the span of their lives and at least twenty years after their deaths.

[Ronin Truth]

Obama Broaches the Idea of 'Mandatory Voting' (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/03/robert-wenzel/coerced-voting-in-fixed-us-electionse280a8/)

By Robert Wenzel (https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/robert-wenzel/?ptype=article)

Target Liberty (http://www.targetliberty.com/)

March 20, 2015

While discussing money in politics on Wednesday, President Obama broached a topic normally confined to academic circles: A law requiring people to vote, reports David Jackson at USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/03/19/obama-broaches-mandatory-voting/25010443/).

“In Australia, and some other countries, there’s mandatory voting,” Obama said while taking questions at the City Club of Cleveland. “It would be transformative if everybody voted. That would counteract money more than anything.”

Oh yeah, this really improves the functioning of government. Argentina, the Congo and Greece are among the 22 countries (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/22-countries-voting-mandatory/) that coerce people into voting.

And just why does Obama think that coercing people to vote won’t result in power players attempting to spend money influencing how they will vote?

As Lew Rockwell would say, this is about pushing and grinding the people around and nothing more.

Reprinted from Target Liberty (http://www.targetliberty.com/2015/03/obama-broaches-idea-of-mandatory-voting.html).

The Best of Robert Wenzel (https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/robert-wenzel/)

Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher of EconomicPolicyJournal.com (http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/) and author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank (http://www.gallatinhouse.com/2014/05/books-by-robert-wenzel.html).

Copyright © 2015 Target Liberty (http://www.targetliberty.com/)



https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/03/robert-wenzel/coerced-voting-in-fixed-us-electionse280a8/

[KingNothing]

If they add a "None Of The Above" option to the ballot then screw it. Why not? That'll learn 'em.

It would be funny to see none of the above when every single election

[jbauer]

How are we going to know if everyone voted since we can't ID anyone while voting?

[acesfull]

How are we going to know if everyone voted since we can't ID anyone while voting?


Clearly if they are so bold to make voting mandatory, they then would create rules and regulations to be followed.
Hence a voter ID card would be required... Its all about CONTROL, CONTROL!

My .02
Acesfull

[Anti Federalist]

nothing will come of this. voting is a state issue. and even if a Federal issue it would never pass the house or senate. I doubt if it would pass even in states with Democratic legislatures.


ain't gonna happen.

If I told you, say, 15 years ago that, in the next decade and a half:

1 - You would be required, under penalty of law, to buy health insurance and prove it to the FedGov or,

2 - That uniformed federal officers would be routinely groping and frisking minors at the nation's airports on a daily basis, just as two examples.

You probably would have said the same thing.

Make no mistake, this is not O-Bomb-Ya just running off at the mouth, this, like most everything bubbling up from the fetid swamps of DC, is a carefully crafted "trial balloon", meant to begin the acclimation process to the idea.

I'd wager money, if any of us would be here to collect it, that you will see this as law within 20 or 30 years.

Frankly, I'm surprised theye have waited this long to float the idea.

[Lindsey]

Just what the government needs, more low-information voters to drown out the votes of the informed. And also to attempt to force people to show their cards.

[AuH20]

Just what the government needs, more low-information voters to drown out the votes of the informed.

The scary thing is with each passing decade we are getting progressively worse and worse candidates, it's not even going to matter who we are allowed to vote for. It's just going to be a rubber stamp placebo.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Yeah, let's not run history-heavy. Let's not check and see if a person is aware that back in the day southern poll attendants used to hand blacks a copy of Shakespeare and wait until they mispronounced a word, then sent them packing, while handing whites a piece of paper and saying, 'Here is a copy of the Pledge of Allegience. Read the first six words,' before allowing them to vote.

The fact that voter tests in the past were unfairly discriminatory doesn't mean they aren't a good idea if they're standardized. Giving the plebeian political rights has been one of the most destructive forces toward negative liberty. It is an undisputed fact that the average voter is an ignoramus who knows nothing about the topics on which they cast a ballot. It is a truly insane system that gives political power to people who know next to nothing and fight every effort to maintain an informed electorate.

Why don't we determine voters by giving them an IQ test and a test regarding general knowledge of the propositions being voted on. The correct answers would be purely factual and not based on any opinion of any kind. I don't see any reason to oppose such a measure.

Libertarians need to realize that democracy is not the friend of liberty, and voting rights do not equate to freedom. The only reason we believe this is the indoctrination we receive in schools regarding the virtue of democracy and the tyranny of monarchy, but that is all in the realm of national myth, not empirical reality. Expanding the voting rights to everyone is a bulwark against negative liberty, not a force in favor of it. If it wasn't for the Constitution, all negative liberty in the US would be long gone by now.

[Cabal]

Hell no. The exponential boobus factor would be disastrous.

As opposed to the bang-up job normal voters have done all these years...

[Stratovarious]

Obama wants to send voting booths to Mexico and Iran...2016 Hillary and Vicente Fox on the Democratic Ticket .....Vladimir Putin will be appointed Secretary of Defense.

[Natural Citizen]

As opposed to the bang-up job normal voters have done all these years...

Very good, grasshoppa....

[Natural Citizen]

Obama wants to send voting booths to Mexico and Iran.

Yeah, the task of counting votes has already been sent to special interests outside of our borders. There was a thread on it some place. Around the middle of last year, I think.

Obama is just a figure of authority, though. A glorified prop. He's got nothing to do with it.

[Stratovarious]

Yeah, the task of counting votes has already been sent to special interests outside of our borders. There was a thread on it some place. Around the middle of last year, I think.

Obama is just a figure of authority, though. A glorified prop. He's got nothing to do with it.

I'd like to see a thread on that (not voting booths or counting per say but all policy),
in my mind someone like Rand would not allow the shenanigans to run rampant as
they are now and have been for the last 40 years.
We know Congress and the Big office and cabinet positions are to a degree
bought and paid for , but I'd like to see someone with documentation lay out
the money trail to show us who is literally behind each policy and law, sure we have lobbyists,
people can say it was the such and such group,
but I mean have someone lay it all out with money trails, minutes of meetings , whistle blower documents etc.
Obama has used executive order to legislate unconstitutional laws as I understand it,
so who is ordering him to open the borders etc, or to what extent is it purely his design?
All his unconstitutional edicts are done with criminal complicity imo by
Congress.
Does he own them ..... they own him...Anyway funding the continuation of
things like DHS by Congress is just not acceptable, so yea, we can't just blame Obama since they
could have shut it down.
We sure need to protect our Country but these new agencies are to protect the gov from the
citizens, has only in appearance something to do with ISIS etc.
We have FBI CIA and so many other agencies already that should be taking care of our security.
Insult to injury , we don't even police our borders.....aarrrrgggg...

, ,
.

[Natural Citizen]

I'd like to see a thread on that (not voting booths or counting per say but all policy),
in my mind someone like Rand would not allow the shenanigans to run rampant as
they are now and have been for the last 40 years.
We know Congress and the Big office and cabinet positions are to a degree
bought and paid for , but I'd like to see someone with documentation lay out
the money trail to show us who is literally behind each policy and law, sure we have lobbyists,
people can say it was the such and such group,
but I mean have someone lay it all out with money trails, minutes of meetings , whistle blower documents etc.
Obama has used executive order to legislate unconstitutional laws as I understand it,
so who is ordering him to open the borders etc, or to what extent is it purely his design?
All his unconstitutional edicts are done with criminal complicity imo by
Congress.
Does he own them ..... they own him...Anyway funding the continuation of
things like DHS by Congress is just not acceptable, so yea, we can't just blame Obama since they
could have shut it down.
We sure need to protect our Country but these new agencies are to protect the gov from the
citizens, has only in appearance something to do with ISIS etc.
We have FBI CIA and so many other agencies already that should be taking care of our security.
Insult to injury , we don't even police our borders.....aarrrrgggg...

, ,
.

You'd really just need an honest to goodness audit of the fed. And that isn't going to happen. A few times I've pondered upon initiating discussion with regard to what we think a genuine audit consists of. A genuine schematic. There is much to it. There is no doubt we have a couple of different systems for finances. No doubt.And hidden systems. Get to that and there you go. You're in. It won't happen, though. When I read some of these audit the fed bills I get to chuckling because there is just so much that isn't contained in such schematics that get scribbled up. Is what it is.

I'm going to send you a link. Watch it. Don't post it. When you are done you will understand what I mean. Now, it is a bit long but you'll find your answers.

[acptulsa]

http://i.imgur.com/hf30FBR.png

/thread

[Suzanimal]

Not a bad idea but I don't believe for a minute our masters will allow that to happen.


On Mandatory Voting
Butler Shaffer

...

I might almost be tempted to go along with Obama’s proposal provided that it include an option on the ballot “none of the above.” A friend of mine, Sy Leon, made such a proposal back in the 1960’s, but with this condition attached: if “none of the above” received more votes than the other candidates, the office would remain unfilled until a candidate could be found who could get a majority of the votes.

But don’t hold your breath waiting for any proposal to be advanced that would give members of the electorate any genuine influence in the selection of their rulers. Like the proverbial sheep getting to vote for either of two selected wolf candidates, the outcome will prove irrelevant. Emma Goldman got to the essence of the democracy fraud when she declared: “if voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.”

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/on-mandatory-voting/

[nobody's_hero]

I'd only support it if 'none of the above' were an option, and if 'none of the above' gained the most votes for a plurality of seats, then government simply ceases to operate until the next election. A 'time out' if you will.

[Stratovarious]

You'd really just need an honest to goodness audit of the fed. And that isn't going to happen. A few times I've pondered upon initiating discussion with regard to what we think a genuine audit consists of. A genuine schematic. There is much to it. There is no doubt we have a couple of different systems for finances. No doubt.And hidden systems. Get to that and there you go. You're in. It won't happen, though. When I read some of these audit the fed bills I get to chuckling because there is just so much that isn't contained in such schematics that get scribbled up. Is what it is.

I'm going to send you a link. Watch it. Don't post it. When you are done you will understand what I mean. Now, it is a bit long but you'll find your answers.

I wanted to see an audit of the Pentagon....that will never happen , not a legitimate one.
All the rhetoric about transparency lol...

, ,
.

[heavenlyboy34]

Not a bad idea but I don't believe for a minute our masters will allow that to happen.

I have a man-crush on Butler Shaffer. :)

[presence]

I think it should be mandatory to once a year bury every politician up to their chest in sand and vote with rocks.

[heavenlyboy34]

I think it should be mandatory to once a year bury every politician up to their chest in sand and vote with rocks.

LOL :D A STONING!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDe9msExUK8