7 votes

You sure we want EVERYONE to vote? Howard Stern interviews Obama supporters.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm sure both candidates have some supporters like this. Obviously, not many of us are partisan here. Anyways, this is from September, but if you haven't heard it yet, you really should check it out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeJbOU4nmHQ

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The real point is being missed here

No one is seeing this for what it is. This is another divide and conquer technique and you're all falling straight into it.

Sure there are lots of stupid people. But there are more disenfranchised people out there. We have 65M voting in these elections and 300M people total. Are you trying to say that more than 235M people are stupid or legally ineligible and shouldn't have a voice in who is elected and put in charge of their lives? That's insane.

A more likely scenario is that by keeping this issue alive, the great mass of people say 'what's the point'?

I say make it mandatory that everyone votes who can identify a person and press a button. That means including 5 year olds. Now you're saying that's insane about this but hear me out first. How many five year olds judge people on tax shelters, adultery, corporate takeovers and indefinite detention? None, you say, well neither does the general voter today, evidently. So that part is a wash with adding the little kids.

What the little one do have is parents. So, the question becomes what education does the average 5 year old get from their parents on who to vote for? My guess is that its at least a little researched about questions that matter and why specific issues are more important than hair style or other fluff stuff. In effect, this not only educates the little ones but the parents as well. An additional benefit is that the kids will probably (on average) ask parents some really tough questions like "why do we bomb them if they didn't fight us first?" or "who owns all the money today?" or "where does money actually come from?" None here can argue this is a bad thing.

Criminals should also be included as these very same arguments (replace parents with peers) can be made, after all who will vote the strongest against the police state and drug war but those enslaved by it?

Back to the disenfranchised... What is the one thing these people respond to in advertising that neither of the two parties have? It's the polar opposite of what originally disenfranchised them in the first place. Genuine, transparent honesty. What kind of candidates have these qualities?

As usual, I would suggest that if we're going to make that change, then we should at least minimize the party system by including the alternative voting system. This is where everyone picks a 1st, 2nd and 3rd choice. If their first choice loses so bad that they have no mathematical chance, their second is used and so forth. This completely eliminates the 'lesser of two evils' syndrome.

For the kids to vote

wouldn't there have to be some kind of explanation included on what they stand for? Since kids don't really comprehend R, D, L & I terms, this would probably end up being some phrases or sound bits that we might be able to hold the candidates to more accountably.

if you pay no taxes

you certainly don't deserve a voice in spending mine.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

but i's pay obama's health

but i's pay obama's health care tax

Cyril's picture

+1 Point.

+1 Point.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

Dear wife says...

After reading some of the comments below, that reminds me of a paradox about this country that dear wife shared with me :

in some states, like California, you're not legal for alcohol till 21... yet, you can vote from 18.

Her remark was two-fold :

1. what does that tell us that lawmakers find okay to see someone NOT MATURE enough to put some substance IN THEIR OWN body, yet still able to decide, MATURE ENOUGH THIS TIME, with others, of the fate of the state they live in, or of entire country ?

AND (considering the overall dumbing-down (thank MSM) of larger and larger slices of the population, and the fact that so many more people, of all ages, are perfectly okay to seek for always many more entitlements from the state and administrations - so-called "rights", beyond those of the Bill of Rights) :

2. ... how come SUCH A SUPPOSEDLY SO EXTENSIVELY LITERATE people allowing thousands and thousands of new pages of legislation A YEAR are not even asked to pass a basic knowledge test ON THE CONSTITUTION, OR EXISTING LEGISLATION ALREADY IN EFFECT, prior to any of their votes ?

Hints :

Dear wife's basic assumption is more constraints should be put on the people's REQUIRED CAPABILITIES to voting (while giving their civil liberties back) since, observably enough, it is today CRYSTAL CLEAR that Congress, along with the Supreme Court who was first, both have ceased doing their jobs ... a long time ago (i.e., in respect and defense of the Constitution)

On 1) dear wife suggested possible lawmakers HYPOCRISY.

On 2) dear wife suggested possible administrative, PURPOSELY DONE CARELESSNESS.

Peace.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

it's simple: --guilt people

it's simple:

--guilt people into allowing everyone to vote because you're "inhumane" if you don't
--dumb down your population
--the same criminals are reelected every year
--the same legislation remains unchanged
--rinse and repeat

is it any wonder certain

is it any wonder certain people weren't allowed to vote up until the last 100-odd years?

just to clear up the confusion

i could have a similar discussion with my romney supporting family members. actually, i already did.
strange they get angry with me because they can't articulate any reason of substance for their vote.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

i'm not sure there's any

i'm not sure there's any validity to the method they used to quiz these people as they were being lead on with false premises. however, this is very related: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XWJVzyQHjM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG_IG-S1bfE

Im at a loss for words

wow

Best way to stop the corruption AND keep the idiots from voting:

amend the Constitution and ban all political parties. That way, people would actually have to do research before they vote, and it would just be too intimidating for the idiotic "he's electable because he has nice hair and the people on TV say so" crowd.

I don't play, I commission the league.

I'm POSITIVE I don't want everyone to vote...

...bring on the literacy tests, poll taxes, whatever you got.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Lol. Fair enough. I'd tend to

Lol. Fair enough. I'd tend to agree with you.
You should have to give some kind of reason for your vote.
And "my mom likes him" or "he looks presidential" isn't good enough.

What is the title of the vid?

I'm getting a code gibberish at that link.

Oh weird. It's called "Howard

Oh weird. It's called "Howard Stern Exposes Obama Supporters 2012 (Official)."