(like in egypt)...or allowed to participate fully in the political process while in uniform.

It's okay though, they throw overseas ballots in the trash anyway.

Ooooh, oooh, let's take it one step further!

ALL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SHOULD BE BANNED FROM VOTING.

How can you trust someone to make decisions that are good for the country when their cashflow and pride is at stake?

[Edited on January 4, 2012 at 1:05 AM. Reason : .]

1/4/2012 1:02:29 AM

Once government spending exceeds 50% of GDP that will be a fairly convincing argument.

1/4/2012 1:42:49 AM

Allowing soldiers to vote against their commander-in-chief violates the chain of command.

1/4/2012 1:45:08 AM

^ we are basically there already

1/4/2012 1:45:30 AM

And how does voting for the President violate the chain of command?

1/4/2012 1:49:34 AM

I was talking to Mr frog

1/4/2012 2:21:49 AM

We should find all the people who don't benefit directly from the government, get them together, and then allow them to make our laws.

1/4/2012 2:32:32 AM

Illegal immigrants?

1/4/2012 2:34:16 AM

Perfect!

1/4/2012 3:25:24 AM

Better yet, people who don't even live in America!

We should have a panel of people from Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America pick our leaders and make our laws.

1/4/2012 11:11:02 AM

I think TPTB would be fine with this. They don't care what the soldiers think, which is why you don't see the media asking them what they think. When they actually do speak their mind, "technical glitches" ensure that they aren't able to say anything of substance.

Supporting the troops means bringing them the fuck home.



[Edited on January 4, 2012 at 11:34 AM. Reason : ]

1/4/2012 11:33:32 AM

Quote :

"How can you trust someone to make decisions that are good for the country when their cashflow and pride is at stake?"

If you understood the importance of the Oath we take as servicemen and women, you may understand the following data. If not, you would probably agree with the OP.



Data taken from: http://query.nictusa.com/pres/ (Federal Election Commission)

1/4/2012 1:00:29 PM

I think only countries that are openly instigating war should decide our laws and pick our leaders.

1/4/2012 1:24:40 PM

well, then, we should be good to go!

1/4/2012 2:09:04 PM

Quote :

"How can you trust someone to make decisions that are good for the country when their cashflow and pride is at stake?"

The same goes for welfare recipients doesnt it.

1/4/2012 2:44:15 PM

Quote :

" How can you trust someone to make decisions that are good for the country when their cashflow and pride is at stake"

^Welfare recipiants, the military, military contractors, every government employee, every elected official, every person over 65, every person on disability, every person on medicaid, every government contractor, every person who pays taxes, every person working at a public univerisity, every scientist getting government grants, a lot of people working at private universities, every person currently attending public universities and grade schools, a lot of people attending private universities.

And all of the aboves' spouses and children

So, I think we're left with 18 year olds who attend private grade school and have zero money in their name and whose parents do not fall into the above list. That's your electorate.

[Edited on January 4, 2012 at 3:02 PM. Reason : .]

1/4/2012 3:01:00 PM

Naw we should do it ancient Greek style, only land / property owners can vote.

[Edited on January 4, 2012 at 5:33 PM. Reason : property as in a home or business, not car]

1/4/2012 5:31:54 PM

Quote :

"We should find all the people who don't benefit directly from the government, get them together, and then allow them to make our laws."

Our government would consist of death-row inmates who have exhausted their appeals

1/4/2012 6:41:35 PM

This thread is stupid.

1/4/2012 11:19:28 PM

Look who made it

1/4/2012 11:58:25 PM

truth.

1/5/2012 12:15:48 AM

smc Should be Banned from Posting.

1/5/2012 1:16:07 AM

Okay, it's settled. So that means all military should be able to attend protests and campaign in uniform, right?

1/5/2012 2:12:51 AM

no

1/5/2012 2:33:47 AM

smc,can you contain all your ideas to one thread?

1/5/2012 3:14:40 AM

The American constitution does not protect the right to vote. It only prevents the removal of the right on the basis of certain criteria. It would be legal for a state to pass an electoral law only allowing, for example, citizens employed as "President of the United States of America" to vote, because removing the right to vote on the basis of employment is not banned.

Incidentally, this loophole is why it's legal to ban felons from voting. Banning service members would be similarly easy.

1/6/2012 12:02:54 AM

You're more than welcome to campaign/protest/whatever you want (as long as it's lawful) while you're in the military. You simply can't do it in uniform. This is a very simple concept, I don't see why it's a big deal to you beyond the fact it's to fill your troll thread quota in the soap box.

1/6/2012 12:36:09 AM

Quote :

"So that means all military should be able to attend protests and campaign in uniform, right?"

already prohibited under UCMJ. CPL Thorsen should be PFC Thorsen (or lower) by the end of the week.


I'd be less concerned about the votes of the <1% of the population who is in uniform than the relationship between retired Flag Officers and the defense procurement / contracting industry. That has a far greater impact on the US than a Corporal hawking for Ron Paul in ACUs.

1/6/2012 9:16:17 AM

1/6/2012 1:20:50 PM

Maybe, since the Armed Forces are the only people in the country who are willing to DIE for the Constitution, we should be the ONLY citizens (dead or alive) allowed to vote.

1/6/2012 9:50:07 PM

yay Starship Troopers!

1/6/2012 10:27:44 PM

There are apparently plenty of living, breathing, soldiers that are not paying attention.

A ban on political action while in uniform is as silly as Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Sure, you can have a political opinion, but keep it to yourself. We'll still let you vote, but by that point in the democratic process it's pretty much a moot point anyway. By all means wear your outfit to church or schools; after all it's been known for ages that a snappy uniform is the best recruiting tool. But wear it to any grassroots event that has the potential to actually effect change and you'll be punished severely.


[Edited on January 6, 2012 at 11:01 PM. Reason : .]

1/6/2012 10:48:44 PM

I know coherence isn't your strong point, but do you think you could string together a few concise sentences that describe what this thread is supposedly about?

1/6/2012 11:11:59 PM

Quote :

"There are apparently plenty of living, breathing, soldiers that are not paying attention. A ban on political action while in uniform is as silly as Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Sure, you can have a political opinion, but keep it to yourself. We'll still let you vote, but by that point in the democratic process it's pretty much a moot point anyway. By all means wear your outfit to church or schools; after all it's been known for ages that a snappy uniform is the best recruiting tool. But wear it to any grassroots event that has the potential to actually effect change and you'll be punished severely."

This is nothing like DADT.

If your movement is dependent on someone being in uniform during your grassroots movement, that's really sad. Again, there is nothing wrong with a service member showing up, in civilian clothes, saying 'Hi, I'm John Smith, I'm a Sgt in the Army and this is what I believe'


^ He's saying that the fact that service members are not allowed to attend protests/political rallies while in uniform is unjust.

[Edited on January 6, 2012 at 11:17 PM. Reason : a]

1/6/2012 11:16:21 PM

If a servicemember participates in a rally/political action in uniform that call for some sort of political action by the American people (aka, voting), then the perception is that the US Military (and thereby the US Government as a whole entity) is supportive of said action. And since the government is ran by elected officials, then said action is not only supported by the government but by the people as well. Since soldiers are elected by the people, they cannot act as representatives of the government in governmental politics; and so they can't do these activities in uniform.


and smc, if you did the slightest bit of research, you would find tons of information on this.

1/7/2012 9:14:21 AM

I can't think of any organization that would want their employees to be protesting in uniform, for the reasons you just listed.

This isn't just a military thing, it goes for pretty much all employers.

1/7/2012 11:00:30 AM

Bingo. By attending a rally in uniform, you create the impression that your organization officially endorses a candidate.

And since when did it become so scandalous to vote for a politician that advances one's personal interests? Like it or not, this is why most people vote.

1/7/2012 11:22:40 AM

Quote :

"This isn't just a military thing, it goes for pretty much all employers."

Most employers aren't wasting tax money and destroying lives on a daily basis. This guy, and every soldier, has a moral obligation to speak out against these wars and, politically, rally behind someone that will bring them to an end. When you join the military, you take an oath to uphold the Constitution. That doesn't mean keeping your mouth shut, that means speaking loudly and clearly when our foreign policy is wrong.

I would imagine that plenty of other soldiers are sick of risking their lives so that the richest among us can maintain a steady flow of income. It's also very beneficial to the campaign when Ron Paul can demonstrate that, yes, many of the soldiers on the ground do stand behind his "radical" or "dangerous" foreign policy.

The other candidates pretend to support the troops, but in reality, they support sending the troops to their deaths and putting them in risky situations. Incidentally, none of the candidates actually served in the military (except Paul and Perry) and generally avoided serving when called. These are candidates that are literally saying that they will attack Iran if elected to office. This is total lunacy. Damn right he's supporting Ron Paul, and I bet more active military will come out and do the same.

It's the right thing to do, regardless of what the law says about it. The law works for the people that would lose the most if we adopted a sensible foreign policy, not for the thousands of soldiers that have been killed, injured, or have PTSD.

Quote :

"Maybe, since the Armed Forces are the only people in the country who are willing to DIE for the Constitution, we should be the ONLY citizens (dead or alive) allowed to vote."

That would mean a landslide victory for Ron Paul.

[Edited on January 7, 2012 at 12:27 PM. Reason : ]

1/7/2012 12:26:51 PM

And that is bad...how?

1/8/2012 10:14:07 PM

It's not, of course. It just presents a tough reality to "conservatives" who frequently beat the drums of war while secretly believing that their blood is too valuable to be spilled.

1/8/2012 10:23:41 PM

Quote :

"This guy, and every soldier, has a moral obligation to speak out against these wars and, politically, rally behind someone that will bring them to an end. When you join the military, you take an oath to uphold the Constitution. That doesn't mean keeping your mouth shut, that means speaking loudly and clearly when our foreign policy is wrong."

wrong foreign policy =/= unconstitutional

service members have lawful obligations. they don't have moral obligations.

1/9/2012 12:46:20 AM

Quote :

"service members have lawful obligations. they don't have moral obligations."

You do realize he's just going to try to turn this into the 'So they can kill babies if ordered to' troll right?

1/9/2012 12:57:47 AM

he might have a point...if it were a lawful order

but such stupidity would certainly be keeping with the theme of the thread

1/9/2012 1:01:49 AM

He's a troll, at least I hope he is, no one can be that stupid.

1/9/2012 1:18:39 AM

smc's flawed logic is that he doesn't get the distinction between "you can't protest" and "you can't protest IN UNIFORM".

Quote :

"A ban on political action while in uniform is as silly as Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Sure, you can have a political opinion, but keep it to yourself."

That is smc's quote. It's inherently false. You can put any servicemember you want on TV and ask them their political views. He can appear with a group of people from a political organization and protest or campaign. What they can NOT do is put on their uniform, go to a reporter and say "I'm CPL Skippy and I support President Obama for re-election" because when he is in uniform, he is a representative of the US government and the US government, inherently, can not endorse a particular political party or candidate.

It's the same reason why government employees aren't allowed to run for partisan office. They can run for things like county treasurer or partisan local elections, but they can't run for state senate on a GOP ticket.

1/9/2012 9:21:38 AM

Isn't every current GOP presidential contender currently a government employee?

1/9/2012 10:30:29 AM

They are not "general schedule" employees, no.

1/9/2012 10:33:58 AM

They're "special employees". Or "royalty".

Soldiers and mailmen aren't eligible to continue to receive a government paycheck while they run for office. Therefore soldiers and mailmen rarely run for office.

[Edited on January 9, 2012 at 10:42 AM. Reason : .]

1/9/2012 10:41:00 AM

Your question was whether all the GOP contenders were federal employees, obviously referring to my statement that federal workers can't run from office. I explained to you they weren't. Move along, troll.

1/9/2012 10:42:44 AM

Quote :

"wrong foreign policy =/= unconstitutional"

You're correct. In the case of most of the conflicts we're involved in right now, they're both wrong and unconstitutional.

I happen to think that if we took the constitutional route, and actually had Congress (the body most representative of the people) declare war, we'd have avoided a lot of this adventurism that has landed us in so much trouble.

Quote :

"service members have lawful obligations. they don't have moral obligations."

I don't understand. Everyone has moral obligations. How good of an idea is it to be giving people guns and telling them to kill if they don't have a strong moral compass?

Quote :

"You do realize he's just going to try to turn this into the 'So they can kill babies if ordered to' troll right?"

I don't see that as trolling. "I was just following orders" is never an excuse, unless there's a gun to your head. It's still not an excuse when you signed up to be there.

[Edited on January 9, 2012 at 11:26 AM. Reason : ]

1/9/2012 11:23:12 AM