Mandatory voting? Obama says it would be 'transformative'

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
The Dictator has spoken.

All you people who use your right to not vote because you don't like a two Party system will be in the ghulags.

Some people don't vote for religious reasons, well Obama metaphorically says off with your heads infidels.

I was also thinking that, the silent majority presumably agreeing with me against socialism, being forced to vote at gunpoint might actually vote Libertarian for once. It might in fact be the only time you could get libertarians out to vote.

IMO Libertarianism needs to be better defined and mature to compete. Right now it is a fading cult of personality centered on Ron Paul.

Libertarians need to clearly define and articulate their platform...as a party..not just Ron Paul and then introduce a genuine Primary. I would argue they need to moderate their platform to appeal to a larger base, but that is just strategy, not ideology and I am not libertarian..so that's not my place to ask for.

Yes, Ron Paul is not a very good representative for libertarians, Gary Johnson is better.

There is a logical conundrum built into libertarianism, liberalism (original definition) and minarchy which is self defeating. No of us wants to be a politician, to do so is either crazy or fraudulent.

This will work well when we achieve minimum power for our ceremonial law clerks. It does not work so well against princes and princesses.

a reply to: Indigo5

The best description of a libertarian platform would be something along the lines of - You know what your government does for you? We'll stop that.

That's a hard message to sell today.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
The Dictator has spoken.

All you people who use your right to not vote because you don't like a two Party system will be in the ghulags.

Some people don't vote for religious reasons, well Obama metaphorically says off with your heads infidels.

I was also thinking that, the silent majority presumably agreeing with me against socialism, being forced to vote at gunpoint might actually vote Libertarian for once. It might in fact be the only time you could get libertarians out to vote.

This gives a peek of the current state of those perceptions..

www.people-press.org...

ha.

I would be willing to go all in with my hand.

If it turns out that most people want to jump off the cliff, who am I to argue?

You have NO IDEA of what people are capable of when forced to vote...

Take Brazil for example...Where this past year Satan, Jesus and Superman ran for office!

This is a MUST WATCH...

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Indigo5

The best description of a libertarian platform would be something along the lines of - You know what your government does for you? We'll stop that.

That's a hard message to sell today.

That's pretty good though, I would say it slightly differently...

"You know what government does to you? We'll stop that."

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

How would more people being biased by money counteract money?

Maybe it wouldn't, but I still think it's an interesting idea. ...Has anyone done a demographic profile of the people who do actually vote? Is it just the people who already have economic or social power? Mixing things up might be a good thing...

LOL like or votes even count. Haha obama should become a comedian after he's out of office, he's a funny guy. Never laughed so hard in my life.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
The Dictator has spoken.

All you people who use your right to not vote because you don't like a two Party system will be in the ghulags.

Some people don't vote for religious reasons, well Obama metaphorically says off with your heads infidels.

I was also thinking that, the silent majority presumably agreeing with me against socialism, being forced to vote at gunpoint might actually vote Libertarian for once. It might in fact be the only time you could get libertarians out to vote.

This gives a peek of the current state of those perceptions..

www.people-press.org...

ha.

I would be willing to go all in with my hand.

If it turns out that most people want to jump off the cliff, who am I to argue?

You have NO IDEA of what people are capable of when forced to vote...

Take Brazil for example...Where this past year Satan, Jesus and Superman ran for office!

This is a MUST WATCH...

I really am relying on the fact that we still have enough adults of sound mind left to see the light.

That said, political chaos is the next best thing. Whatever slows down the monster until we can turn it around I suppose.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
The Dictator has spoken.

All you people who use your right to not vote because you don't like a two Party system will be in the ghulags.

Some people don't vote for religious reasons, well Obama metaphorically says off with your heads infidels.

I was also thinking that, the silent majority presumably agreeing with me against socialism, being forced to vote at gunpoint might actually vote Libertarian for once. It might in fact be the only time you could get libertarians out to vote.

IMO Libertarianism needs to be better defined and mature to compete. Right now it is a fading cult of personality centered on Ron Paul.

Libertarians need to clearly define and articulate their platform...as a party..not just Ron Paul and then introduce a genuine Primary. I would argue they need to moderate their platform to appeal to a larger base, but that is just strategy, not ideology and I am not libertarian..so that's not my place to ask for.

There is a logical conundrum built into libertarianism, liberalism (original definition) and minarchy which is self defeating. No of us wants to be a politician, to do so is either crazy or fraudulent.

Plato spoke to that conundrum a couple thousand years ago..

"“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”

a reply to: greencmp

I fixed the video link...you should watch it

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

Ahhhhh, results from a Pew Poll in 2011 is your example of "current "?

Okay then.
And with no info for that graph, for sampling rates or anything else.

Yeah, I buy it. I also have a bridge in Brooklyn I just purchased as well.

Hey...rather than rest on lazy snark, why not provide some updated data? With sampling rates etc. as you suggested?

Mandatory doesn't have room in America the free, still we got mandatory health care thanks to the man in the white house that think taking freedoms from tax payers and those that chose to vote is ok.

Mandatory goes along with dictatorship, what is the government going to do with those that chose no to Obey, fine them?, put them in jail?, this is another dangerous way to erode what our nations was build upon and the desire of men that we appoint to power with delirious dreams of totalitarian rule.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
The Dictator has spoken.

All you people who use your right to not vote because you don't like a two Party system will be in the ghulags.

Some people don't vote for religious reasons, well Obama metaphorically says off with your heads infidels.

I was also thinking that, the silent majority presumably agreeing with me against socialism, being forced to vote at gunpoint might actually vote Libertarian for once. It might in fact be the only time you could get libertarians out to vote.

IMO Libertarianism needs to be better defined and mature to compete. Right now it is a fading cult of personality centered on Ron Paul.

Libertarians need to clearly define and articulate their platform...as a party..not just Ron Paul and then introduce a genuine Primary. I would argue they need to moderate their platform to appeal to a larger base, but that is just strategy, not ideology and I am not libertarian..so that's not my place to ask for.

There is a logical conundrum built into libertarianism, liberalism (original definition) and minarchy which is self defeating. No of us wants to be a politician, to do so is either crazy or fraudulent.

Plato spoke to that conundrum a couple thousand years ago..

"“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”

I have always had a problem with Plato. He seems to conceive of the problem and then get distracted before thinking it through completely.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." -Lord Acton

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
The Dictator has spoken.

All you people who use your right to not vote because you don't like a two Party system will be in the ghulags.

Some people don't vote for religious reasons, well Obama metaphorically says off with your heads infidels.

I was also thinking that, the silent majority presumably agreeing with me against socialism, being forced to vote at gunpoint might actually vote Libertarian for once. It might in fact be the only time you could get libertarians out to vote.

This gives a peek of the current state of those perceptions..

www.people-press.org...

ha.

I would be willing to go all in with my hand.

If it turns out that most people want to jump off the cliff, who am I to argue?

You have NO IDEA of what people are capable of when forced to vote...

Take Brazil for example...Where this past year Satan, Jesus and Superman ran for office!

This is a MUST WATCH...

OK...apparently Ytube has disabled other sites from linking the video...but trust me, it's worth the click through to ytube to watch..

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: marg6043

what is the government going to do with those that chose no to Obey

I say suspend their Constitutional Rights - they're not exercising them, so why have 'em? Makes it clear what voting is about.

a reply to: soficrow

Sofi, that sounds like what dictatorships does, that is not what American was founded upon and what our forefathers had in mind.

Only those that are in jail serving time and that has committed crimes get to have their constitutional rights suspended.

This will become another way to erode our constitutional rights in America, opening the door for more deterioration of what American has stood for.

No, good, mandatory has not room in Americas laws.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Indigo5

The best description of a libertarian platform would be something along the lines of - You know what your government does for you? We'll stop that.

That's a hard message to sell today.

That is an emotional appeal and while emotionally satisfying...building a platform purely on "anti" anything or anarchist has no long-term legs. It appeals to thoroughly oppressed people. It is effective for revolutions in highly oppressed societies, but even then the platform has the life of a mayfly and almost always ironically morphs into dictatorship.

The libertarian party needs a platform that includes (+) not just taking machete to our current system.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Indigo5

The best description of a libertarian platform would be something along the lines of - You know what your government does for you? We'll stop that.

That's a hard message to sell today.

That is an emotional appeal and while emotionally satisfying...building a platform purely on "anti" anything or anarchist has no long-term legs. It appeals to thoroughly oppressed people. It is effective for revolutions in highly oppressed societies, but even then the platform has the life of a mayfly and almost always ironically morphs into dictatorship.

The libertarian party needs a platform that includes (+) not just taking machete to our current system.

I am all for doing it as painlessly as possible.

Perhaps, in honor of the Tao, we can think of it as water flowing from the 10,000 places.

Water is the universal solvent. Though it is soft, it is relentless and irresistible.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
The Dictator has spoken.

All you people who use your right to not vote because you don't like a two Party system will be in the ghulags.

Some people don't vote for religious reasons, well Obama metaphorically says off with your heads infidels.

I was also thinking that, the silent majority presumably agreeing with me against socialism, being forced to vote at gunpoint might actually vote Libertarian for once. It might in fact be the only time you could get libertarians out to vote.

IMO Libertarianism needs to be better defined and mature to compete. Right now it is a fading cult of personality centered on Ron Paul.

Libertarians need to clearly define and articulate their platform...as a party..not just Ron Paul and then introduce a genuine Primary. I would argue they need to moderate their platform to appeal to a larger base, but that is just strategy, not ideology and I am not libertarian..so that's not my place to ask for.

There is a logical conundrum built into libertarianism, liberalism (original definition) and minarchy which is self defeating. No of us wants to be a politician, to do so is either crazy or fraudulent.

Plato spoke to that conundrum a couple thousand years ago..

"“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”

I have always had a problem with Plato. He seems to conceive of the problem and then get distracted before thinking it through completely.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." -Lord Acton

What I do for a living is in part identify leaders...but for private companies. Having done it for a couple of decades I have discovered the best leaders lack ego. They will loudly tell anyone who will listen that their success is based on not just a willingness, but a drive and passion for finding and hiring people who are smarter than themselves. They never tell anyone what to do, they map out the goal and people rally to cross that line. People work toward that goal willingly. The "Leader" just articulates the goal, vision and general terrain that needs to be covered to get there. You talk to these leaders and they will tell you they lead simply because they are good at it...if they were good farmers or sculptors they would be just as happy doing that. They "Lead" because it is where they are objectively most useful in the effort.

So I guess my answer to the "power corrupts" bit is it depends on how you define power and it's actual utility absent ego.

a reply to: Indigo5

Why don't I offer up poll driven statistics? Surely you jest.

Stats, driven by polling is about the biggest lie out there.

Want to see the real situation? Money and tangible items.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
The Dictator has spoken.

All you people who use your right to not vote because you don't like a two Party system will be in the ghulags.

Some people don't vote for religious reasons, well Obama metaphorically says off with your heads infidels.

I was also thinking that, the silent majority presumably agreeing with me against socialism, being forced to vote at gunpoint might actually vote Libertarian for once. It might in fact be the only time you could get libertarians out to vote.

IMO Libertarianism needs to be better defined and mature to compete. Right now it is a fading cult of personality centered on Ron Paul.

Libertarians need to clearly define and articulate their platform...as a party..not just Ron Paul and then introduce a genuine Primary. I would argue they need to moderate their platform to appeal to a larger base, but that is just strategy, not ideology and I am not libertarian..so that's not my place to ask for.

There is a logical conundrum built into libertarianism, liberalism (original definition) and minarchy which is self defeating. No of us wants to be a politician, to do so is either crazy or fraudulent.

Plato spoke to that conundrum a couple thousand years ago..

"“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”

I have always had a problem with Plato. He seems to conceive of the problem and then get distracted before thinking it through completely.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." -Lord Acton

What I do for a living is in part identify leaders...but for private companies. Having done it for a couple of decades I have discovered the best leaders lack ego. They will loudly tell anyone who will listen that their success is based on not just a willingness, but a drive and passion for finding and hiring people who are smarter than themselves. They never tell anyone what to do, they map out the goal and people rally to cross that line. People work toward that goal willingly. The "Leader" just articulates the goal, vision and general terrain that needs to be covered to get there. You talk to these leaders and they will tell you they lead simply because they are good at it...if they were good farmers or sculptors they would be just as happy doing that. They "Lead" because it is where they are objectively most useful in the effort.

So I guess my answer to the "power corrupts" bit is it depends on how you define power and it's actual utility absent ego.

a reply to: Indigo5

It is an easy distinction to lose track of, public and private.

In private enterprise, successful companies and businesses of every sort tend to attract and retain the most intelligent and effective people as a consequence of the rapid reward/punishment procedure associated with market gain/loss directly attributable to performance.

The remaining people are relegated to junior positions in other expertises or, government. There are many revolving door crony capitalist switcharoonies but, by and large the vast majority of intelligent people are necessarily not in government.

So, public servants are predisposed to be inept and presumably counterproductive in anything they endeavor to do.

The solution say the socialists is to ban intelligent people from doing anything but planning for everybody else, after all they are the best suited to the task, right? I hope you can see how social engineering and all forms of central planning cannot work.

That being the case there is little or no argument left for most federal government programs. You can try those things at the state or local level.