Virginia GOP Will Require Voters To Sign ‘Loyalty Oath’

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Here, I can't vote in the primaries at all because I'm not registered with a party. I can understand a party not wanting the other party to determine their candidate, but making people sign oaths to the party? No. Sorry. That's clearly voter intimidation.

Here you can only vote in the primary of the party you are registered.

I grew up with that. I thought that was standard.

reply to post by getreadyalready

The apocalypse is likely coming regardless. I just plan to have a clean conscience when it gets here, and I won't have that if I vote for any of the other warmongers on the GOP stage.

Well said, although I'd like to add Obama in there since he shares their foreign policy views, in good degree.

I think everyone should quit worrying about who's going to be president, just vote who you like but focus on who fires the first shot to get this revolution started, time of talking and dreaming is over, the way i see it, the media is just trying to confuse you so your head wont be on straight when the noose is drawn. stay focussed

Originally posted by Annee
Here you can only vote in the primary of the party you are registered.

I grew up with that. I thought that was standard.

It's not that way in VA.

If the GOP wants to have a private party, fine, but let them pay for it themselves instead of having the state pick up the bill.

reply to post by Annee


Several states have open presidential primaries. Source

This story just shows that like Outkast said, the political party is a club and they can make you follow their rules if you want to have your say about their guy...

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by ModernAcademia

 

Votes are anonymous right?

If someone signed this, and then voted however they wanted, there is no way to hold them accountable, so what difference does it make?

Also, if the Primary is funded by the Republican Party, and they want to limit who participates then fine. BUT, if the primary is funded by Virginia Taxpayers, then the GOP has no right to determine who does or doesn't participate!!

This is disgusting, and it is just more proof that we really don't have any rights, and our votes really don't count for much.

It makes a difference in that a persons future vote in the general election is being placed as a condition on the current Primary voting process. I would think this really raises a lot of legal issues. I will have to do some digging, but when I have some answers I will post them here.

Nice Find OP

This is something that should concern every single voter in the country. Forget about Ron Paul. If this can be used now, it can used again later in the future. It sets a precedence and if left unchallenged you can guarantee you will see more of it, in more States, in the future.

Nazis did that, it was called "The Hitler oath"...

"The oath pledged personal loyalty to the person of Adolf Hitler in place of loyalty to the constitution"

As we know, adolph was the National Socialists political party leader..

en.wikipedia.org...

History is repeating / everything old is new again.. welcome to the USSA where party loyalty is paramount.

A bigger issue is that the primary system is a ridiculous relic.

Why should voters in Iowa and New Hampshire have such a big say in picking the nominee?

As opposed to, for example, Californians who usually don't get to vote until after everything is decided.

I guess that's another thread.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Annee

 

Several states have open presidential primaries. Source

This story just shows that like Outkast said, the political party is a club and they can make you follow their rules if you want to have your say about their guy...

Makes sense to me. If you're trying to pick the one guy for your ideology - - you only want those who support that ideology voting.

Voters of opposing ideology might try to throw the election by voting against the top guy. That sux.

I actually support closed party primary voting. It seems more fair.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
People who are claiming this is against their "rights"....you have to remember this isn't a Government election. It is a party election that is overseen by the government.

Being part of a party is like being part of a club...if you want to belong, you play by their rules. You already have to be registered as a Republican to vote in the Republican primary...this is just another rule to follow.

You don't have to like it...but it isn't against your rights nor is it "unconstituional".

Your post would be more meaningful if it was factual...

Voters do not register with a party in Virginia; thus the commonwealth’s primary is open to all residents, not just members of the Republican party.

So you can see your post was total BS...

So if you don't take the oath, you aren't allowed to vote? Does that mean Newt Gingrich can't vote since he's admitted he wouldn't vote for Ron Paul if he won?

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

You really think that is a possibility with Paul's foreign policy? We would take the leash off of Israel, and allow them to handle business like that, but it wouldn't be necessary because....... We would also ease the sanctions on Iran, open up diplomacy, and start trading the things they need (like gasoline) for their oil. They would not think to close the Straits, because the Straits would be shipping their oil to us in exchange for our gasoline and other wares.

Besides, a deadlock between the Prez and the Congress wouldn't affect our Middle East presence. When is the last time a president asked for Congress's permission to do anything anyway? Not Bush, and not Obama. They send our troops wherever in the hell they feel like, they only ask Congress for money afterwards, and they make it politically unpleasant to refuse to fund the money.

I see your example as completely implausible, and actually pretty much opposite of the expected outcome of Paul's foreign policies.

Paul would be good because he would do nothing.
But do not worry.
He will not do nothing because Bush and Obama did what they wanted anyway
so Paul will also just do something.

Wow did I get lost in that logic salad.

Originally posted by TinfoilTP

Originally posted by CaDreamer

Originally posted by TinfoilTP

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

Don't you realize?????

"Do nothing" is a vast IMPROVEMENT!!! Far superior to doing the WRONG thing!

So, if Paul is elected, and only accomplishes deadlock and in-fighting, then I'll consider that a WIN! I'll be happy with 4 years of vetoes and government accomplishing absolutely nothing. In fact, if someone ran on that campaign platform alone, I would vote for them.

We need a whole class of Representatives to say, "Send me to Washington, I promise to not do a damn thing, and stand in the way of anybody else trying to do anything." That would help the country tremendously!

Ya, as the price of gas hits ten dollars a gallon from Iran blockading the the Straits of Hormuz and blackmailing the world to get a trickle of oil out, you will be saying how you love a do nothing President. Just one example shows how ludicrous do nothing would be.

hmm i wonder how much Iranian oil comes to the united states?

how about Zero barrels a year. so it should have no effect on our economy at all. www.eia.gov... check the link it lists all oil imports by country of origin.
they arent "blocking" the straits they are having naval war games just like ALL other nations that have navys...

the US putting Warships in the middle of that is an act of war...

deny ignorance my friends.

edit on 30-12-2011 by CaDreamer because: (no reason given)

Wow are all Paul supporters this ignorant? No wonder his kooky ideas pass unchallenged among his ranks of supporters.
The Straits are where a significant percentage of the worlds oil traffics through on tankers. Iran would blockade that in a heartbeat if RP were President then proceed to blackmail the world to let any oil through.

This represents 35% of the world's seaborne oil shipments, and 20 percent of oil traded worldwide in 2011

Source

ron paul would pull out of the middle east completely. where has iran ever stated that they would blockade if Paul became president?

ignorance is shining but not from me.

For those living in Virginia.

Don't be scared by their 'threat', they cannot monitor your vote..it is illegal.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

OK, now I know you are just trolling. Thanks for that.

Ron Paul is a staunch supporter of Israel. His faith makes him so. His foreign policy toward Israel is about the same as Netanyahu's. So does Netanyahu also want to see the destruction of Israel?

If you don't know his policies, just say so. We'd be happy to educate you. If you just want to state falsehoods as facts and then attack those "facts" then this discussion is pointless?

Wait a minute.
We need to support Paul because he will get us to stop meddling overseas and spending our money on what other countries ask for...
...but not Israel? He is going to keep the current foreign policy stance on Israel?

I am so confused.

Obama broke his oath to defend the constitution so all is fair I believe.

If they can do it...so can the people.

Peace

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Just got this from my lady. I explained this "loyalty oath" thing and she said quote " Why do they have the right to demand my loyalty if they are not representing my interests" I think that says it all folks. This is unconstitutional PERIOD

reply to post by candcantiques


It's not legally enforceable, which is why its stated as an “oath” not a “contract”. They are simply doing it because they have an open door policy and they don't want members of other parties coming in an voting for people outside their party.

Loyalty oaths, huh? Reminds me of Catch-22 by Joseph Heller. Great book if you've never read it.

This measure seems a little over-the-top, and has a certain stench of desperation coming from it.

Been a lot of that lately...