SURPRISE! Totalitarian Liberals Want to Make it MANDATORY TO VOTE

[bripat9643]

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 **** who thinks Nazis are left wing.


22 countries where voting is mandatory

Those countries have taken a step down the road to tyranny. Mandatory voting, like mandatory anything, is a violation of your rights. Leftwing turds want to make voting mandatory because that means more idiots will be voting. The lower the average intelligence of the voters, the better they do.

 

[bripat9643]

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'

....?

It will never happen because the Constitution says states determine their election laws, not the federal government.

 

[Seawytch]

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'

....?

It will never happen because the Constitution says states determine their election laws, not the federal government.

Yeah? Look up HAVA and the NVRA.

 

[hadit]

How big of a step is it from "You must vote" to "This is whom you must vote for"? Simply put, if you don't care enough about the problems facing the country to base your vote on more than "that's who the van drive said to vote for", you simply should not vote.

 

[hunarcy]

SURPRISE! Totalitarian Liberals Want to Make it MANDATORY TO VOTE

This really shows how skeerd the cons are of the poor. They know that if the poor get to vote, they lose every time. That's why they try so hard to keep them from being able to vote.

OR, maybe it shows that Conservatives want people to be free to choose to vote or not vote without consequences.

If that were the case, cons wouldn't be trying so hard to keep the poor from voting.

No one wants to keep the poor from voting. They only want the poor to vote once in each election.

 

[hunarcy]

Want to commit voter fraud in a state where they don't check IDs? Check the obituaries a few days before the election. Call in to verify a dead person's polling location. Show up and vote as the deceased. Hopefully, no one will show up claiming to be the dead person unless they are another fraudulent voter too!

This post right here is how we know Voter ID proponents are retards.

They think voting as a dead person is going to swing an election and therefore is worth risking jail time.

Meanwhile, everyone else has figured out it isn't going to swing an election, which is why in-person voter fraud is extremely rare.

So you go right ahead, hot shot.

You've never heard to Precinct 13?

How Johnson Won Election He'd Lost

 

[hunarcy]

Want to commit voter fraud in a state where they don't check IDs? Check the obituaries a few days before the election. Call in to verify a dead person's polling location. Show up and vote as the deceased. Hopefully, no one will show up claiming to be the dead person unless they are another fraudulent voter too!

This post right here is how we know Voter ID proponents are retards.

They think voting as a dead person is going to swing an election and therefore is worth risking jail time.

Meanwhile, everyone else has figured out it isn't going to swing an election, which is why in-person voter fraud is extremely rare.

So you go right ahead, hot shot.

Exactly! There simply IS NO PAYOFF. If you rob a bank, you're risking jail time for SOMETHING. A single in person voter is risking everything for ZERO payoff. (Which is why in person voter fraud is more rare than painite)

One person? How do you know it is just one person? They also do not have any chance of getting caught, so what is the penalty?

Of course they have a chance of getting caught, a good one. They are walking into a local polling place where someone is likely to know the deceased individual.

The penalty for perjury is steep and THERE IS NO PAYOFF.

You believe that the election judges in the average precinct of 1,100 know everyone who has died since the last election? Really?

 

[Seawytch]

Want to commit voter fraud in a state where they don't check IDs? Check the obituaries a few days before the election. Call in to verify a dead person's polling location. Show up and vote as the deceased. Hopefully, no one will show up claiming to be the dead person unless they are another fraudulent voter too!

This post right here is how we know Voter ID proponents are retards.

They think voting as a dead person is going to swing an election and therefore is worth risking jail time.

Meanwhile, everyone else has figured out it isn't going to swing an election, which is why in-person voter fraud is extremely rare.

So you go right ahead, hot shot.

Exactly! There simply IS NO PAYOFF. If you rob a bank, you're risking jail time for SOMETHING. A single in person voter is risking everything for ZERO payoff. (Which is why in person voter fraud is more rare than painite)

One person? How do you know it is just one person? They also do not have any chance of getting caught, so what is the penalty?

Of course they have a chance of getting caught, a good one. They are walking into a local polling place where someone is likely to know the deceased individual.

The penalty for perjury is steep and THERE IS NO PAYOFF.

You believe that the election judges in the average precinct of 1,100 know everyone who has died since the last election? Really?

No, they don't "know everyone" but the chance of getting caught is still very high so it's high risk with zero payoff. In person voter fraud is rare to nonexistent.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Nobody is going to be forced to vote.

Nobody was going to be forced to purchase health insurance either...

and then the heritage foundation said it was a good idea and indicative of "personal responsibility".

until a democrat passed it, of course.

Again sorry, we are not like democrat sheep who over 11 months before an election got their marching orders and told who to vote for.

 

[bripat9643]

How big of a step is it from "You must vote" to "This is whom you must vote for"? Simply put, if you don't care enough about the problems facing the country to base your vote on more than "that's who the van drive said to vote for", you simply should not vote.

Why would any rational ethical person want more numskulls to vote? That's the intention behind mandatory voting.

 

[jillian]

Nobody is going to be forced to vote.

Nobody was going to be forced to purchase health insurance either...

and then the heritage foundation said it was a good idea and indicative of "personal responsibility".

until a democrat passed it, of course.

Again sorry, we are not like democrat sheep who over 11 months before an election got their marching orders and told who to vote for.

no one got marching orders. that's more rightwingnut delusional thinking.

and you have the patent on marching in lockstep, little winger steeple.

but thanks for failing to address the fact that it was your righties who devised the ACA in its original form... your wingers then participated in changing the statute to make it less effective, then didn't vote on it. .. even though it was a statute of their own devise.

and if you can string together a sentence that doesn't involve "sheep" and "libs" and other idiocies, perhaps yu can manage to address that issue.

 

[jillian]

Nobody is going to be forced to vote.

Nobody was going to be forced to purchase health insurance either...

and then the heritage foundation said it was a good idea and indicative of "personal responsibility".

until a democrat passed it, of course.

Again sorry, we are not like democrat sheep who over 11 months before an election got their marching orders and told who to vote for.

and you say you're not a sheeple, little idiota?

who is this *we* you're referring to? you're barely able to speak for yourself much less anyone else.

but thanks for proving what we all knew... that you don't have two synapses to rub together.

which explains why you're a braindead teatard.

 

[jillian]

How big of a step is it from "You must vote" to "This is whom you must vote for"? Simply put, if you don't care enough about the problems facing the country to base your vote on more than "that's who the van drive said to vote for", you simply should not vote.

Why would any rational ethical person want more numskulls to vote? That's the intention behind mandatory voting.

they let you vote... so i'll assume your question is ironic.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

This post right here is how we know Voter ID proponents are retards.

They think voting as a dead person is going to swing an election and therefore is worth risking jail time.

Meanwhile, everyone else has figured out it isn't going to swing an election, which is why in-person voter fraud is extremely rare.

So you go right ahead, hot shot.

Exactly! There simply IS NO PAYOFF. If you rob a bank, you're risking jail time for SOMETHING. A single in person voter is risking everything for ZERO payoff. (Which is why in person voter fraud is more rare than painite)

One person? How do you know it is just one person? They also do not have any chance of getting caught, so what is the penalty?

Of course they have a chance of getting caught, a good one. They are walking into a local polling place where someone is likely to know the deceased individual.

The penalty for perjury is steep and THERE IS NO PAYOFF.

You believe that the election judges in the average precinct of 1,100 know everyone who has died since the last election? Really?

No, they don't "know everyone" but the chance of getting caught is still very high so it's high risk with zero payoff. In person voter fraud is rare to nonexistent.

No. You cannot say that because you would have to catch them to prove it even exists, and no one is really looking!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

This post right here is how we know Voter ID proponents are retards.

They think voting as a dead person is going to swing an election and therefore is worth risking jail time.

Meanwhile, everyone else has figured out it isn't going to swing an election, which is why in-person voter fraud is extremely rare.

So you go right ahead, hot shot.

Exactly! There simply IS NO PAYOFF. If you rob a bank, you're risking jail time for SOMETHING. A single in person voter is risking everything for ZERO payoff. (Which is why in person voter fraud is more rare than painite)

One person? How do you know it is just one person? They also do not have any chance of getting caught, so what is the penalty?

Of course they have a chance of getting caught, a good one. They are walking into a local polling place where someone is likely to know the deceased individual.

The penalty for perjury is steep and THERE IS NO PAYOFF.

You believe that the election judges in the average precinct of 1,100 know everyone who has died since the last election? Really?

No, they don't "know everyone" but the chance of getting caught is still very high so it's high risk with zero payoff. In person voter fraud is rare to nonexistent.

Please explain how they get caught if no one is checking.

 

[bripat9643]

How big of a step is it from "You must vote" to "This is whom you must vote for"? Simply put, if you don't care enough about the problems facing the country to base your vote on more than "that's who the van drive said to vote for", you simply should not vote.

Why would any rational ethical person want more numskulls to vote? That's the intention behind mandatory voting.

they let you vote... so i'll assume your question is ironic.

You're the biggest dingbat in this forum, Jillian. You are exactly the kind of person I had in mind when I posted that.

People who don't vote tend to be dumber than those who do, however, as your case proves, there are exceptions to the rule.

 

[Seawytch]

Exactly! There simply IS NO PAYOFF. If you rob a bank, you're risking jail time for SOMETHING. A single in person voter is risking everything for ZERO payoff. (Which is why in person voter fraud is more rare than painite)

One person? How do you know it is just one person? They also do not have any chance of getting caught, so what is the penalty?

Of course they have a chance of getting caught, a good one. They are walking into a local polling place where someone is likely to know the deceased individual.

The penalty for perjury is steep and THERE IS NO PAYOFF.

You believe that the election judges in the average precinct of 1,100 know everyone who has died since the last election? Really?

No, they don't "know everyone" but the chance of getting caught is still very high so it's high risk with zero payoff. In person voter fraud is rare to nonexistent.

Please explain how they get caught if no one is checking.

POLLWORKER: State your name and address
GUY PRETENDING TO BE DEAD PERSON: John Smith 123 Main
GUY IN LINE BEHIND HIM: You're not John Smith, he's my father and he died last week

 

[kwc57]

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.

Are you honestly this stupid or are you just being obtuse? I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that. By your flawed logic, that means any restrictions to voting are invalid because the amendment had the word "right" in it. That isn't true and you know it. I would suggest you Google some remedial reading programs you might take advantage of. You have failed to point out where you have a constitutional right to vote. You have incorrectly pointed out amendments that said what could not be used as an exclusion to voting rights. The amendments say your "right to vote" (if you have a right to vote) cannot be infringed for specific reasons such as gender, race and age. Beyond that, your state can determine by any other means whether or not they extend you the right to vote. In many states if you are a felon, you cannot vote.....even if you are a 21 year old black woman who is a lesbian. States determine who can vote, not the federal government. It's all historical fact that you should have learned in your junior high civics class. I suggest you educate yourself instead of continuing to make a fool of yourself here.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Are you honestly this stupid or are you just being obtuse? I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that. By your flawed logic, that means any restrictions to voting are invalid because the amendment had the word "right" in it. That isn't true and you know it. I would suggest you Google some remedial reading programs you might take advantage of. You have failed to point out where you have a constitutional right to vote. You have incorrectly pointed out amendments that said what could not be used as an exclusion to voting rights. The amendments say your "right to vote" (if you have a right to vote) cannot be infringed for specific reasons such as gender, race and age. Beyond that, your state can determine by any other means whether or not they extend you the right to vote. In many states if you are a felon, you cannot vote.....even if you are a 21 year old black woman who is a lesbian. States determine who can vote, not the federal government. It's all historical fact that you should have learned in your junior high civics class. I suggest you educate yourself instead of continuing to make a fool of yourself here.

You have "a right" because the Constitution says it's a right with the word "right".

It's a Semantics and Lexicon thing, you know.

And those amendments take away the "determination" that states can make as to who can vote. States can not bar anyone from voting on the basis of race, gender and age.

In other words? You have the right to vote.

 

[kwc57]

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.

Are you honestly this stupid or are you just being obtuse? I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that. By your flawed logic, that means any restrictions to voting are invalid because the amendment had the word "right" in it. That isn't true and you know it. I would suggest you Google some remedial reading programs you might take advantage of. You have failed to point out where you have a constitutional right to vote. You have incorrectly pointed out amendments that said what could not be used as an exclusion to voting rights. The amendments say your "right to vote" (if you have a right to vote) cannot be infringed for specific reasons such as gender, race and age. Beyond that, your state can determine by any other means whether or not they extend you the right to vote. In many states if you are a felon, you cannot vote.....even if you are a 21 year old black woman who is a lesbian. States determine who can vote, not the federal government. It's all historical fact that you should have learned in your junior high civics class. I suggest you educate yourself instead of continuing to make a fool of yourself here.

You have "a right" because the Constitution says it's a right with the word "right".

It's a Semantics and Lexicon thing, you know.

And those amendments take away the "determination" that states can make as to who can vote. States can not bar anyone from voting on the basis of race, gender and age.

In other words? You have the right to vote.

I'm going to let the stoopidity of your post stand as testimony to your absolute ignorance of semantics and lexicon.

Please don't tell me that you vote.