Tea party opening speaker suggests blacks be kept from voting

reply to post by Aggie Man


Ideally, those with a vested interest in politics would be the most likely to vote, and they would make informed decisions. What we have lately is a lot of pop culture movements that get people to "turn out the vote" "rock the vote" etc.

TPTB have found a way to bribe a large number of voters into furthering their agenda and the price is as small as free pizza, sunglasses, t-shirts, and some co-ed mixers!

I agree that everyone should have an "opportunity" to vote, but I don't think everyone should exercise that opportunity just because the girls in their class are going to be there!

Originally posted by brainwrek
reply to post by Aggie Man

 

Letting the ignorant masses vote certainly hasnt worked out so far.

Once you are lost, do you usually keep driving, or do you stop, figure out where the hell youre at, and make adjustments?

Do you think it's the voters, and not the politicians, that are failing? I beg to differ. In your scenario above...the politicians are the drivers, not the voters.

[edit on 5-2-2010 by Aggie Man]

reply to post by Aggie Man


I would disagree.

Who keeps putting retarded politicians in office? The voters.

Originally posted by brainwrek
reply to post by Aggie Man

 

I would disagree.

Who keeps putting retarded politicians in office? The voters.

As opposed to who? We gotta vote for someone. And it's the political parties that decide who their candidates will be. Additionally, politicians sell us on their platforms, most of which is just a bunch of empty promises, as the POTUS can't dictate what Congress does or how they vote on the issues at hand.

Sure, we could simply not vote....but if you don't vote, then you can't complain about the results.

Originally posted by brainwrek
reply to post by Aggie Man

 

I would disagree.

Who keeps putting retarded politicians in office? The voters.

What standards would you put in place to determine a potential voter's eligibility? How would you ensure there would not be a cultural, racial, gender or age bias to the test?

Unfortunately, those in power will be the ones who determine the criteria and they but one goal and that is, to maintain the status quo.

That is not what you want, right?

reply to post by Avamarguy


How about a basic governmental/Constitutional knowledge test?

No bias whatsoever. Anyone and everyone should be able to name at least 5 of the first 10 Amendments to the BOR.

Anyone and everyone should know how many senators and representatives compose Congress.

Questions along those lines.

I also stand by my statement that anyone on any form of public aid should not be eligible to vote until they are off the taxpayer dime.

reply to post by Aggie Man


No, we dont "gotta vote for someone". That is the biggest mistake people make.

Voting for the least worst candidate will do nothing to solve the problems this country faces.

Reply to post by whaaa

Quite frankly what if there were such a test he wouldn't have been elected but it has nothing to do with the voters' race! Even deceased individuals voted in the last election. I'm sorta glad he got elected just because it got so many regular americans interested in the political system again


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by brainwrek


I also stand by my statement that anyone on any form of public aid should not be eligible to vote until they are off the taxpayer dime.

So, you are suggesting that, those who lost their jobs should also lose the right to vote?

Honestly, I find it ironic that you would be promoting the possibility that voters be forced to pass a "constitutional test," while you are also advocating the stripping of constitutional rights of people who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed.

reply to post by brainwrek


That isn't true. We do have to vote for somebody. Simply refusing to vote will allow the entrenched politicians to retain power.

At this point, we have to make a leap of faith and vote for the least-worst candidate and hope for the best.

My solution is this......."Sack the Incumbent" first and foremost.

Secondarily, push through candidates that promise to do absolutely nothing! We would be better off with a total and utter log jam where not a single bill gets through than we are now!

Thirdly, recruit your friends and neighbors. Try to get some regular people that you know and trust to run for some positions. Lobby for them. Raise funds for them. Do whatever it takes to get people into office that are not politicians.

Originally our lawmakers were business people and lawyers and writers and farmers. They travelled to Washington a few months out of the year to represent a community that they were intimately connected with and then they returned to that community to live and work. Now, the politicians are entirely disconnected from the people they represent. They do not have a regular job or a regular home in their district. They may legally reside there, but all of their time is spent in D.C. or overseas or in the Hamptons. Their main source of income is their political career, and their main source of experience to draw their decision making is a life of political grooming, not living!

1. Sack the incumbent. 2. Elect people who do not plan to enact any new laws and will stand in the way of anybody else doing so. 3. Recruit real-life people with integrity and regular jobs to represent us.

Actually, I agree with the test as well. And, I feel it should be in english, then we could do away with our foreign language ballots as well. It just might help eliminate some voter fraud.....although I'm certain people will still find away around it. Anything that might help the process should be looked into, ie. photo id, proof that you live in that district, common sense things like that.

reply to post by Avamarguy


Which constitutional right would you be referring to?

If you are referring to Amendments 15, 19 or 26, those deal with race, gender and age, nothing else.

No one should be allowed to cast a vote for someone who promises to give them more of other peoples money.

Surely you would also agree that there is no Constitutional right to any form of public aid.

You want everyone to vote? Fine, take away all unconstitutional forms of "public assistance".

Administering literacy tests to be registered to vote would be a costly venture which I don't want to have to pay for.

But I would like to see legistation on "knock and drag" tactics in the next election. No big organizing campaigns to take people to polls by the busload in the next election.

Originally posted by Bombeni

But I would like to see legistation on "knock and drag" tactics in the next election. No big organizing campaigns to take people to polls by the busload in the next election.

Please tell me what is wrong with going to the old folks home or senior center and taking the geezers to vote in a bus or van.

Or is it just poor people in the ghetto without transportation, you object to having a ride?

If you are a registered voter, what difference does it make how you get to the polling station?

[edit on 5-2-2010 by whaaa]

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by Bombeni

But I would like to see legistation on "knock and drag" tactics in the next election. No big organizing campaigns to take people to polls by the busload in the next election.

Please tell me what is wrong with going to the old folks home or senior center and taking the geezers to vote in a bus or van.

Or is it just poor people in the ghetto without transportation, you object to having a ride?

If you are a registered voter, what difference does it make how you get to the polling station?

[edit on 5-2-2010 by whaaa]

Can you account for their sound minds? Remember, people are in a nursing home because they cannot care for themselves and need constant, 24-hour care. They may be physically or mentally handicapped. How many of those old folks truly think they are casting a vote for Franklin Roosevelt?

[edit on 5-2-2010 by sos37]

To Modern Academia:

To say this guy was a "plant by the Dems" is also a serious statement.

No preceding "In my opinion" or "Perhaps", or any statement to support this comment as your own personal opinion? Which is clearly all it is, and rather a biased one, I might add. Accusatory, and extremely unfair.

____________________

As far as this being a grassroots movements, from the looks of their pricey tickets to the upcoming affairs...... the so called "grassroots movement" ship has already sailed. Yeah. Too bad it's taken such an ugly turn.

While I'm willing to scrutinize the specifics, I want to say flatly, that I feel if I am a citizen of this nation, subject to her laws and entitled to the privileges of citizenship, my right to vote should be undeniable.

However, I recognize that the truth of the matter is the political party system has a lock on the real decision via several factors....

- the electoral college
- the party 'nomination' system
- the status of corporations as 'citizens'
- the cabal, or combine, of the Military Industrial complex, the energy
cartel, the banking cartel, and the transnational policy organizations
- the pseudo 'intelligentsia elites' death grip on policy
- the utter abdication of the Judiciary of the principle of non-partisanship

and finally,

- the total sell-out (or political surrender) of the executive branch to the
subculture infesting the government.

When I first read about the tea party (granted, I had a jaded view from what I seen on TV), I was suprised at a number of things

They were started loooong ago, it was a political activist group that called for the end of wild spending and to control the national debt. It was bipartisan. It was exceptionally active during the bush years and railed often against that presidency...it was also pretty much ignored.

They held protests that barely made local news, etc.

That is something I can get behind...government has been and is out of control. the debt is insane and just going more mad by the day. I personally want a clear plan of how and when the US will be debt free, and taking into accounts funding for potential wars, disasters, minor and major recessions, etc. I want no "well, things were going great until we blew a tire, didnt think that one through".


The tea party since the day of Obama's win is simply a hyjacked movement by the republicans to turn it into a once nobel cause to something indistinguishable to a extreme right wing talking points group filled with people whom have no concept of what the agenda truely was. The more popular it becomes, the less it resembles anything remotely close to its origins.

The tea party is now factioned into 2 groups. The still very small bipartisan movement for government (both sides) to stop being so fail and get a budget going akin to 1997-99, and the other side which should simply be called "Robots of Glenn Beck and Hannity".

Oh well...guess the original tea party should simply disban and relabel itself as "Bipartisan Accountability Milita (BAM!)" or something to that effect so no party can claim it now or in the future.

"we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country."

My only question is.....is the comma between civics because the speaker gave a pause, was in his written speech or was inserted after the fact.

If read, it gives in implication as to denying anyone the ability to vote based on color or creed.

If you take out the comma, it says "civics literacy test" - Such a test would be for the general public to promote better understanding of our government and founding principles.

I do not agree with any type of test, but it should be left up to the States to decide such a notion.

Hold on.....HOLD ON!!!!

Whomever made this statement is a total JACKASS.

Why?

I can name numerous people that I know personally that will vote all R's or D's across the board without knowing a single thing about the candidates....AND THEY CAN READ!!!

This was just a horrible comment to make in more ways than one.