[bearcat6]

Well I see that Obama wants to make voting mandatory. He must think there are not enough dems voting. I wonder what the penalty will be for not voting and who is going to keep track of who votes and who doesn't? Probably the voting police.

 

[TommyGunn]

:ek: I heard nothing about this. Sources?
And please don't tell me it's The Onion.

 

[TooTall]

I wonder if this is Oregon where the Governor recently signed a law making you automatically registered to vote if you have a driver's license?

Under new Oregon law, all eligible voters are registered unless they opt out - LA Times

The possibilities for fraud seem endless.

 

[TooTall]

Oops.. found this while I was reading this morning:

During a town hall style meeting in Cleveland Wednesday, President Obama suggested mandatory voting in the United States would be a good, "transformative" thing for the country. He also suggested it would be a good way to combat campaign spending in elections.

Obama: How About Mandatory Voting - Katie Pavlich

 

[TommyGunn]

OK, it is not an ONION piece, it happened.

The ONLY way I would accept "mandatory" voting is if they always included the option "NONE OF THE ABOVE" on the ballot.

And I'm not even really sure about THAT!

It seems just another way the govt. has of taking over our lives ... like Obamacare but....without the stirrups .....mg:

 

[Kevin Gibson]

My understanding was someone just asked his opinion on the issue and he just said "maybe it's a good idea"...Unless there's some other story out there, this really a nothing story. Even if he wanted it with all his heart, it won't go anywhere anyhow. There are real issues to be concerned about, this will never be one of them.

 

[TommyGunn]

My understanding was someone just asked his opinion on the issue and he just said "maybe it's a good idea"...Unless there's some other story out there, this really a nothing story. Even if he wanted it with all his heart, it won't go anywhere anyhow. There are real issues to be concerned about, this will never be one of them.

Yes; in the end we may theorize how bad it would be or how good, but it isn't really gonna happen. :neutral:

 

[bearcat6]

My understanding was someone just asked his opinion on the issue and he just said "maybe it's a good idea"...Unless there's some other story out there, this really a nothing story. Even if he wanted it with all his heart, it won't go anywhere anyhow. There are real issues to be concerned about, this will never be one of them.

In the story I read there was more to it than that. He cited Australia as a good example of mandatory voting.
Obama floats making voting mandatory, calling it 'potentially transformative' | Fox News

 

[TommyGunn]

In the story I read there was more to it than that. He cited Australia as a good example of mandatory voting.
Obama floats making voting mandatory, calling it 'potentially transformative' | Fox News

Well, we're not Oz, despite Obama thinking HE is the guy behind the curtain.:neer:

:cryinlaugh:

 

[CaptainGyro]

If Obama was true to his Chicago Democrat machine roots, everyone would have to vote two or three times.

Dead folks included.

 

[Kevin Gibson]

If Obama was true to his Chicago Democrat machine roots, everyone would have to vote two or three times.

Dead folks included.

Yep, vote early and vote often...the more the merrier.

 

[Diamondback]

Only way I'd participate would be if we could also vote one one member of each Chamber to be summarily guillotined at the start of the next session.

Right now, I'm part of the big wave of discontent at RedState that could easily be harnessed into a "burn it all down" movement if people aren't real careful... and frankly, given the lack of difference between a Reid/Pelosi Democrat and a McConnell/Boehner/Jeb Bush Republican, maybe it would be best to just let Nero burn Rome to the ground--maybe he and his cronies under both banners will be politically immolated with it so we can get on with the rebuilding sooner.

 

[CaptainGyro]

Am I the only one who's not entirely disappointed with a "do nothing" Congress? It seems that we have way too many laws that have made things worse, and precious few that have made things better. Ergo, the less Congress does, the happier I am.

That government governs best which governs least...be careful what you wish for.

 

[bearcat6]

Am I the only one who's not entirely disappointed with a "do nothing" Congress? It seems that we have way too many laws that have made things worse, and precious few that have made things better. Ergo, the less Congress does, the happier I am.

That government governs best which governs least...be careful what you wish for.

I agree, if we could just get them to stay at home and send them their checks we would be better off.

 

[Diamondback]

The problem is, if they're not doing anything they can't be a check and balance against a powerhungry Imperial Executive like Nero the Zero or the Hildabeast.

 

[stand watie]

Diamondback,

My suggestion is to send ZERO/Michelle & the girls on a round the world cruise for the next 2 years. = Just think of all the $$$$$$$$ that we'd save.

yours, sw

 

[Diamondback]

The problem is getting them to GO, and STAY on the boat away from comms...

 

[CaptainGyro]

The problem is, if they're not doing anything they can't be a check and balance against a powerhungry Imperial Executive like Nero the Zero or the Hildabeast.

Excellent point, Diamondback; the Wall Street Journal addressed it this morning:

Loretta Lynch?s Obama Problem - WSJ

If you can't see the entire article, copy the headline and paste it into a Google search. Then select the result that leads to the WSJ.

 

[Kevin Gibson]

Generally a do nothing congress is a do no harm congress. The problem comes when they do nothing and that results in a government shutdown.