Obama-voters-rent increase in Color

[emilywilliams]

Many people aren't pleased with Obama getting re-elected. A cynic could say Romney wasn't exactly a huge improvement, but that does not stop the grapes from being soured. However, a number of backlashes of sorts are being reported, among them a Colorado property manager promising an Obama voters' rent hike. Article resource: Obama voters rent hike vowed by Colorado landlord

Obama-voters-rent hike vulnerable

Everyone who did not get their way in the election is upset that Obama was re-elected. Though Mitt Romney graciously admitted defeat, individuals are not pleased over it. It is almost like a sports game when people get really angry that their team lost, so there are a ton of hurt feelings.

However, a number of people are still very upset about this. Granted, one could point out that most of a president's obligations are to make speeches and pass laws that Congress actually creates, but this being America, that type of thing involves logic and learning, which are viewed suspiciously.

There have been a lot of backlashes, but, according to the Huffington Post, the worst is the Colorado property manager promising a rent hike to all those who voted for Obama.

Housing already too expensive

In spite of protestations from Jimmy McMillan that âEUoethe rent is too damn high,âEU John Obringer, of Colorado Springs, Colo., has said that he is going to institute an Obama-voters-rent increase. In a letter addressed to renters, he asserts that Obama's plans are resulting in higher taxes, layoffs, reduced hours and other negative effects for small businesses such as his.

He is going to have to increase costs on every person, but he said that voters should pay for what they voted for. For this reason, he wants renters to let them know how he voted so he can increase their costs first.

According to tenants, this is just his personality. They are not quite sure if he is significant or not about the entire thing. He does not say how much cash he will need with increased rent charges, but he will be decreasing office hours to two days a week.

Republicans not happy

Besides the Obama-voters-rent hike, there have been a few other cases of reprisal by embittered Republicans. According to the New York Daily News, Southwest Shooting Authority, a gun store in Pinetop, Ariz., put a full-page ad in the local paper informing residents that they didn't want Obama voters in the store and did not want their business.

Due to the increased costs of companies, CEO of Papa JohnâEUTMs, John Schnatter, promised that an additional 11 to 14 cents would be needed on every pizza to pay for âEUoeObamacare.âEU There was also a DennyâEUTMs restaurant owner named John Metz who promised a 5 percent âEUoeObamacare surchargeâEU because of increased costs of business with Obamacare, according to Slate.

Sources

Huffington Post

New York Daily News

Slate

[Tony-DarkGrave]

you get for who you vote for now you have to suffer the consequences of your shitty decision.

[Iron-Hampster]

At 4/24/13 07:14 AM, emilywilliams wrote:

He is going to have to increase costs on every person, but he said that voters should pay for what they voted for. For this reason, he wants renters to let them know how he voted so he can increase their costs first.

I think I found the hole in his plan

[Camarohusky]

At 4/24/13 08:04 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: you get for who you vote for now you have to suffer the consequences of your shitty decision.

Welcome to the United States of China, where it is 100% OK to use money and power to intimidate people into voting your way!

[Memorize]

At 4/24/13 12:28 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 4/24/13 08:04 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: you get for who you vote for now you have to suffer the consequences of your shitty decision.

Welcome to the United States of China, where it is 100% OK to use money and power to intimidate people into voting your way!

As opposed to the people who use Government to tell property owners how much they can and can't charge for rent on their own homes.

Or people without property voting to increase property taxes.

[Camarohusky]

At 4/24/13 05:20 PM, Memorize wrote: As opposed to the people who use Government to tell property owners how much they can and can't charge for rent on their own homes.

What does that have to do with voter intimidation? If he people don't like it, they can freely vote to put politicians in who favor the wealthy over those without the means to help themselves.

However, if people are getting penalized by those with power for voting a certain way, they have no freedom in making these such decisions.

Or people without property voting to increase property taxes.

Or people with no kids voting down school support measures. Or people with no kids voting in Hawk Candidates. Or people in rural areas getting extremely high amounts of government support (read: ALL RURAL FOLKS) voting down tax bills that pay for the welfare of their expensive way of life.

Part of a voting government is having people impose burdens upon others.

[Memorize]

At 4/24/13 05:41 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Or people with no kids voting down school support measures. Or people with no kids voting in Hawk Candidates. Or people in rural areas getting extremely high amounts of government support voting down tax bills that pay for the welfare of their expensive way of life.
Part of a voting government is having people impose burdens upon others.

So... why exactly are you complaining about the rent increase again?

lol.

[LazyDrunk]

At 4/24/13 05:20 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/24/13 12:28 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Welcome to the United States of China, where it is 100% OK to use money and power to intimidate people into voting your way!

As opposed to the people who use Government to tell property owners how much they can and can't charge for rent on their own homes.

Or people without property voting to increase property taxes.

lol you made carmohusky look like he was eating shit and it got all over his face.

[GameChild214]

Haven't got completely screwed over by the government, when I do, I will just kill myself.

Problem = Life
Solution = Death

[Camarohusky]

At 4/24/13 06:35 PM, Memorize wrote: So... why exactly are you complaining about the rent increase again?

Because it's restricting free voting.

[Camarohusky]

I'm still curious how Memorize thinks people being restricted by something they had a chance to vote on, and not having a chance to vote fairly at all are in any way the same?

Perhaps he thinks restrictions when they help people are bad, but when they hurt people they're good. Explains why he so often sides with Conservatives.

[Dawnslayer]

I'm sorry, but aren't we missing a pretty vital question here? How does the landlord know who voted for Obama and who didn't? Last time I checked, how a person votes is by law their own business, so there's only three ways the landlord could know for sure:

1) The tenant brings it up to the landlord of their own volition, which in light of this announcement they surely wouldn't;
2) The landlord demands such knowledge from the tenants as a prerequisite of renting, which violates the privacy rights of the tenants; or
3) The landlord has direct access to the tenants' ballots, which is illegal.

Furthermore, anyone who feels they were wrongfully surcharged based on their voting habits is within their rights to file grievances of discrimination with the municipal court. Even if the landlord won the case (which I doubt would happen), the cost of the lawsuit itself would outweigh any benefits gained by charging extra rent.

[Memorize]

At 4/24/13 08:09 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I'm still curious how Memorize thinks people being restricted by something they had a chance to vote on, and not having a chance to vote fairly at all are in any way the same?

Tyranny by the majority?

My point is, unless the property owner is going against a contract that both he and the renter voluntarily agreed to, then it doesn't matter how stupid his/her reasoning for jacking up the price of renting is.

After all, it's still their property, not the renters.

I'm wondering why you would consider this abusive, but not when a renter uses Government to force home OWNERS to agree to their "rent" demands.

Perhaps he thinks restrictions when they help people are bad, but when they hurt people they're good. Explains why he so often sides with Conservatives.

It only appears that I side with conservatives more, simply because the term "conservative" can be applied to a much broader group of people than liberal (You have libertarian Conservatives, fiscal conservatives, paleo-conservatives, neo-conservatives, constitutional conservatives, ect.)

For example, you'll find conservatives who, despite personally being against gay marriage, do support gay couples being together and adopting; they just don't believe Government should be involved in marriage (gay or straight).

I'm personally in favor of gay marriage, but i'm against Government sanctioned marriages as well, which is why I don't argue with those specific individuals.

Or, I'm against mandatory contraceptive coverage, not because of any BS religious reason (I support using contraception), but because when my friends and I were around 10 years old we, without a job or money, could easily find a way to get a hold of them. So when I see a liberal tell me that as a grown ass adult with a job; that because they were either too lazy or damn stupid to walk into a nearby CVS and drop $10 for a box, that I should have to pay for their entirely voluntary sex life as a result... I can only think "Fuck you, dumbass!"

Besides, haven't you noticed that practically half my posts are comparing Obama to Bush and calling out liberals for having fake anti-war positions?

Since I'm anti-war too!

[Heretic-Anchorite]

He can't force them to reveal who they voted for, that would be illegal, and he can't legally carry out a direct threat to increase rent based on how someone voted.

Frankly, I hope this asshat tries to go through with this so he gets his ass handed to him in court.

[Camarohusky]

At 4/24/13 08:41 PM, Memorize wrote: I'm wondering why you would consider this abusive, but not when a renter uses Government to force home OWNERS to agree to their "rent" demands.

This is abusive as it is a private party using their power to essentially co-opt the fundamental basis of our government.

I support landlord tenant law in the same way I support other laws. They are there to ensure that people don't get screwed because they have less power than someone else. Do I think some of those laws are a bit much? yeah, but those laws are very few and far between.

[LemonCrush]

At 4/24/13 12:28 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Welcome to the United States of China, where it is 100% OK to use money and power to intimidate people into voting your way!

Is that different from Obama using his money and power to dictate how much of your paycheck you get to keep, or what you are forced to buy?

[Sense-Offender]

That's fucking sickening. What a despicable scumbag.

[aviewaskewed]

At 4/24/13 08:04 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: you get for who you vote for now you have to suffer the consequences of your shitty decision.

So...it's cool to discriminate against people for doing their civic duty, and exercising their Constitutionally guaranteed rights as long as they voted against the way you wanted? Ok, never EVER talk to me about loving, defending, or invoking the principles of this country or it's Constitution again. You just took a gigantic shit on them all.

[aviewaskewed]

At 4/25/13 12:33 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Is that different from Obama using his money and power to dictate how much of your paycheck you get to keep, or what you are forced to buy?

What does governmental policy making have to do with a private individual clearing looking to do something that would be in violation of every law this country is built on as regards to the right to vote? Straw man is made of straw.

[Memorize]

At 4/24/13 11:33 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

I support landlord tenant law in the same way I support other laws. They are there to ensure that people don't get screwed because they have less power than someone else.

I would think that those who don't own the property should have less power than the person who does.

[LemonCrush]

At 5/2/13 09:12 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: What does governmental policy making have to do with a private individual clearing looking to do something that would be in violation of every law this country is built on as regards to the right to vote? Straw man is made of straw.

Refresh my memory here...

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 5/2/13 09:08 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: So...it's cool to discriminate against people for doing their civic duty, and exercising their Constitutionally guaranteed rights as long as they voted against the way you wanted? Ok, never EVER talk to me about loving, defending, or invoking the principles of this country or it's Constitution again. You just took a gigantic shit on them all.

they took their civic duty and made SHIT OF IT. Obama has done more harm than done, and since (I can Only assume the Landlord owns the Building) he can adjust rent as he sees fit. and thanks to the Sequester everybody has been hurt, our elderly for the SS benefits and our kids who go to school. thanks to a bunch of douchebags who wanted Obama Phones.

[aviewaskewed]

At 5/3/13 01:10 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: they took their civic duty and made SHIT OF IT.

In your opinion. So because they did the wrong thing with their RIGHT to vote, you think that should absolutely impact their living situation. Yep, never want to hear you talk about you love this country or any of that again. You are a disgrace.

Obama has done more harm than done,

In your opinion again.

and since (I can Only assume the Landlord owns the Building) he can adjust rent as he sees fit.

Um, no, he can't actually. Landlords enter into legally binding contracts with their tenants over the expectations each has with the other. There are also certain local, state, and federal laws that both parties need to adhere to beyond the items they agree to in their lease. This isn't really about a landlord increasing rent on his tenants, that's a straw man and a misdirect. The issue is this individual has decided to punish people for exercising their right to vote in a way he didn't like. That is a fundamental violation of everything this country was built on.

and thanks to the Sequester everybody has been hurt,

Not the senators and representatives that pushed through that emergency bill to make sure they should fly home...but what the fuck does the Sequester have to do with this issue? Straw man again.

our elderly for the SS benefits and our kids who go to school. thanks to a bunch of douchebags who wanted Obama Phones.

Wow, so you build a straw man and then use blatant ignorance because you don't understand what the sequester was actually about. Yep, just when I think you're making some progress in your political thought you head right back into the sewers of ignorance.

[Sense-Offender]

At 5/3/13 01:10 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: they took their civic duty and made SHIT OF IT.

What if Obama had lost and there was a landlord who was pissed and did the same thing with people who voted against him? It doesn't matter who voted for who. This shit is despicable and is an insult to democracy.

[SmilezRoyale]

Voting can [can meaning is capable of but not necessitating] constitute an act of aggression as much as choosing to increase someone's rent is. The difference being that the Landlord's technical right to set rent rates as he or she so chooses is pre-established, whereas the powers of government are forever in contest/dispute [and for good reason]

If democracy works as it is described in the civics class, and if one politician creates a law or a policy which is militaristicaly, economically, or socially aggressive towards a particular group of people, then I don't see passive or active forms of retaliation as particularly detestable, especially if its of a non-violent nature.

I view one person's right to vote as valid as my right to make your life a living hell.

[Dawnslayer]

At 5/4/13 10:49 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I view one person's right to vote as valid as my right to make your life a living hell.

Just for the sake of argument, let's say I agreed with you (which I don't). It still doesn't answer the fundamental question: how does the landlord know if the tenant voted for Obama or not?

[Osyris]

At 4/25/13 12:33 AM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 4/24/13 12:28 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Welcome to the United States of China, where it is 100% OK to use money and power to intimidate people into voting your way!

Is that different from Obama using his money

what money

and power

Obama is like a dictator, especially with the Grand Obstructionist party in Congress

[Memorize]

At 5/4/13 03:51 PM, Osyris wrote:

Obama is like a dictator, especially with the Grand Obstructionist party in Congress

Controls Presidency and both senate and house for 2 years with filibuster proof super majorities for 1 year while currently controlling presidency and the Senate today....

Yeah, damn those obstructionists!

[SmilezRoyale]

At 5/4/13 01:21 PM, Dawnslayer wrote:

At 5/4/13 10:49 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I view one person's right to vote as valid as my right to make your life a living hell.

Just for the sake of argument, let's say I agreed with you (which I don't). It still doesn't answer the fundamental question: how does the landlord know if the tenant voted for Obama or not?

This is a valid point in the context of the specific measure. Sort of like any indiscriminate act of violence in response to a threat [real or perceived] is just that, indiscriminate. You're bound to make trouble for people who had nothing to do with the political struggle.

I'm not excusing the specific case, I'm just saying that I don't see anything wrong in principle with retaliating against the aggressive act of voting.

[naronic]

What's going to end up happening is this fuckface is going to end up driving up rent for blacks, hispanics, and maybe young whites; anyone he can stereotype as a "liberal" whether they be left leaning or not (seeing as he can't legally see whom these people voted for).
He'll get called out for it, mauled, and put on a pedestal face down as another allegory for the currently failing Republican Party; this guy is about to loose everything.

Voting can [can meaning is capable of but not necessitating] constitute an act of aggression as much as choosing to increase someone's rent is. The difference being that the Landlord's technical right to set rent rates as he or she so chooses is pre-established, whereas the powers of government are forever in contest/dispute [and for good reason]

While voting may be problematic for certain parties concerning any decisions they may make with any new person in office or how much they will make as a result, voting only one person in office (especially with America's system of government) can't directly target the well being of a specific group of people the same way as, well, targeting the well being of a specific group of people can.

Examples include such things as a wealthy Right-leaning business owner targeting any Democrats that may work for him by lowering their pay.
It's as legal as economic voter intimidation usually is, that is to say, not legal at all.