Should voting be mandatory ?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Should voting be mandatory ?

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    If we had Mrs. Palin on energy, the way she was in Alaska, with an 82% approval rating, we would be winning this fight.  But you know this.

     

     

    Pure speculation on your part.

    Ya gotta dream, though....

     

     

     




     

     

    Maybe

    But what do we have instead?

    Gas      3.60

    Pipeline    No   (possible 100,000 jobs....not)

    True unemployment     14%

     

    I like my "pure speculation".

     



    No maybes.  You made it up.

     

    I'm sure you like the smell of your own breaking wind, too, but that doesn't make it any less gag-inducing to those around you.

     

     

     

     

     




     

    I "made up"  3.60/gallon, No pipeline, 100,000 jobs that could have been, and true unemployment at 14%?

    Hmmm, you don`t get out much do you?

    Nice faaht talk also.  Do you pick your nose and eat it you p oopy head?

    [/QUOTE]

    You're the one spewing gas here.  

    You can't prove those factors would be different if an election 5 years ago went a different way. (The "100k jobs" figure is even more ridiculous.)

    Actually, they might even be much, much worse.  I say we would have 5.60 gas and 21% UE....

    See how that works...or doesn't...?

    So instead, maybe you should try forming an argument you can prove and stick to the topic.

     

    It's fair enough to say you think the wrong team was elected, but when you throw out baseless guesstimates, you just look foolish.

    That's like saying 9/11 would not have happened if Gore was elected.  It was dumb then, and this is dumb now.

     

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Should voting be mandatory ?

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     

     

    I would have to say yes .... my main reason for saying yes is .... I think it would help develop more centrist policies for the country .

     

     

     

     

     

     



    You referring to the public voting people into office or senators/congressmen voting on bills?

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I'm sorry ...... I meant voting people into office ....

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Then I would have to say no. There are way too many people who aren't informed enough on the issues or the people they'd be voting on. With voting comes responsibility. Some can't handle that responsibility and I would rather they be able to not vote if that's what they choose.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I agree with you that there is too many people who aren't informed enough about the issues .... now is that from laziness or just not caring .... I say both .... so now what can be done to include those people in the process ..... I would say that reinstating the Fairness Doctrine and public financing of campaigns at all levels , state, local and federal elections

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree it's laziness and/or not caring. Frankly, if someone doesn't care enough to understand the issues or the candidates then I don't think there's anything that can be done to "include" them that already isn't happening. Between internet, tv, and newspapers, there isn't an excuse for people to not be informed. Those not informed are choosing to not be informed. 

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    It will never happen but ...... how about a small fine to help motivate

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Sister,

    In Australia that is exactly what they do with people who do not vote.

    The options are a fine and/or jail.

    I view voting as not just a privlige but an obligation. In the upcoming Markey/Gomez statewide election you can vote absentee until noon on Monday morning. 

    WDYWN makes an excellent point(s). Yes, I am not thrilled with having low information voters forced to vote. Enough of them vote already. 

    I do not agree, with all do respect, that politics does not contribute in a positive way to one's life. I certainly respect that for her that is the case. But for those of us who volunteer so much time to actively participate in the process, it is not true for us. Most campaign workers are not paid. They give up a lot of time and energy, etc. so the process, whether it be an election, or trying to get a bill thru, will happen. That is anything but selfish. 

    I also believe that the people who constantly complain and do nothing, not even vote, never mind get and keep themselves informed, should maybe think about taking a seat, sitting down and not complaining for awhile about how awful everything is.

    So yes, I get less time with my family And friends. And sure, I might be more healthy. But my family is proud of what I contribute, pro bono, to the political process. And as one of the role models for the children in my life, not to mention a partner to my husband, that is part of my legacy to them. 

    Lastly, if you really do not think your vote counts, in 2010 a special election had to be held in MetroWest for a MA House seat. The regular election and the recount came out dead even. In the special, a young Rep. unseated the female Dem. incumbent.

    In the regular election, a cousin of that Dem did not bother to vote. If he had, no costly special election, his cousin retains her seat. That was only 3 years ago here in MA. 

    Hold your nose if you must but vote for someone. Vote for Minnie Mouse. Politicians and all those consultants really look at voter turnout. This is the one time where no matter who you are, everyone gets just one vote. And they look at the demographics of who voted. All of that is public information. Your voting record is public information. If you want your particular demographics to be taken seriously, you help it when you vote...you hurt it when you do not. The elderly tend to vote in higher percentages for example. And, they are not brushed because of it. 

    So vote just because it is in your personal interest to vote. Your vote. Your choice.

     

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Should voting be mandatory ?

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

     

    If we had Mrs. Palin on energy, the way she was in Alaska, with an 82% approval rating, we would be winning this fight.  But you know this.

     

     

    Pure speculation on your part.

    Ya gotta dream, though....

     

     

     




     

     

    Maybe

    But what do we have instead?

    Gas      3.60

    Pipeline    No   (possible 100,000 jobs....not)

    True unemployment     14%

     

    I like my "pure speculation".

     



    No maybes.  You made it up.

     

    I'm sure you like the smell of your own breaking wind, too, but that doesn't make it any less gag-inducing to those around you.

     

     

     

     

     

     




     

     

    I "made up"  3.60/gallon, No pipeline, 100,000 jobs that could have been, and true unemployment at 14%?

    Hmmm, you don`t get out much do you?

    Nice faaht talk also.  Do you pick your nose and eat it you p oopy head?



    You're the one spewing gas here.  

     

    You can't prove those factors would be different if an election 5 years ago went a different way. (The "100k jobs" figure is even more ridiculous.)

    Actually, they might even be much, much worse.  I say we would have 5.60 gas and 21% UE....

    See how that works...or doesn't...?

    So instead, maybe you should try forming an argument you can prove and stick to the topic.

     

    It's fair enough to say you think the wrong team was elected, but when you throw out baseless guesstimates, you just look foolish.

    That's like saying 9/11 would not have happened if Gore was elected.  It was dumb then, and this is dumb now.

     

     

     




     

    So, to be clear, you honestly think that a McCain/Palin team would NOT have blessed the pipeline and the jobs it would/could have created?  And, if so, you believe that gas would NOT have come down?  And, I`m assuming you think that despite the current incompetent`s obsession with EVERYTHING but job creation, that the unemployment rate would not be down?

    Man, you really don`t get out much do you?

    [/QUOTE]

    Man, you're really digging a rhetorical hole for yourself here.

    You can't make a simple connection of election to pipeline to jobs...and neither can I...to the negative or positive.  The only honest answer is that we don't know HOW exactly it would have shaken out.  So, we guess, like you did.

    What I'm saying is that you are totally talking out of turn here and have NOTHING to back it up.  

    It's almost as if you forget what the world was like in 2009 and the many obstacles to the fantasy you're currently imagining.

    And this is beside the point that any potential economic benefits of the pipeline are still heavily disputed even in the current scenario you posit.  There is NO proof whatsoever that the pipeline will either decrease gas prices or create enough jobs to move the UE needle.  Another war in the Middle East or dip in the markets would wipe it out almost overnight.  

     

    Repeat: I get that you think McCain would have done a better job, but beyond your general beliefs, any details you attempt to argue are still just science fiction.  Believe what you want to believe, but stop pretending they're facts.

     

     

     

     

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Should voting be mandatory ?

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

    Penalizing people who decide not to vote is illegal.  It can't happen here.

    We good?



    Gregin,

    I agree. We are fine. It is and should not become legal here, in the US for many reasons.

    My intention was simply to note that the country...really continent...of Australia has I would imagine that law that is not widely known here. 

    I was not advocating it. But I think sometimes here, in America, we forget other countries, including Democratic countries have major differences in their legal system, in their election system, in their constitution, etc. (France, Great Britain, Australia, Canada, etc.)

    It was the lead of a longer post about the topic with the statewide election next Tuesday, tthe 3rd and final debate over and now it is all about GOTV...Get Out The Vote. The stakes are high in many ways. This is our new MA Senator.

    So we are cool. Awesome. Use some of Carlin's 7 words but you know, we do not do that here in the forums. :)

    Btw, in case you did not read the whole post, I wrote the same thing you did about people who do not vote.  Just phrased a little bit differently but same sentiment.

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Should voting be mandatory ?

    In response to bigdog2's comment:

    Yes, I am using hypotheticals, I agree.  But the fact remains that a different election result would have brought a team in that would focus on JOBS.  Geeez.....be honest.

    OK.

    But again, you can only assume that a different election result would have changed the employment trajectory.

    We are left speculating whether McCain/Palin would have, say, bailed out the automakers (saving a million jobs) or signed a stimulus bill (1/3 tax cuts)...

    ...especially in light of a dem-controlled congress which might have been as obstructive as the gop as proven to be.

    It really remains to be seen what exactly the government can do to create jobs other than just hiring people on its own.

    Given the myriad charges of "RINO" at McCain before and since, it's still anyone's guess at how his admin would have proceeded.

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Should voting be mandatory ?


     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Should voting be mandatory ?


     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share