US Politics: Common Ground Between Democrats and Republicans

[awesome possum]

I'm sorry, but what's so alarming about this? If I prefer sherbet to ice cream am I really being close minded if I don't like 3/4 of the frozen desserts in the supermarket? How different is CBS from NPR or from the NY Times or WaPost? If one looks at those numbers and decides that conservatives are monolithic but lefties are diverse because they choose from more media outlets that all serve the same line, then that probably says more about oneself than anyone else.

You make me question the existence of multiple planes of reality.

Frankly, the big takeaway was liberals

• Are more likely than those in other ideological groups to block or “defriend” someone on a social network – as well as to end a personal friendship – because of politics.

Though that dynamic is pretty clear on the board already, if you're paying attention.

Is it really a takeaway? I think several of us have talked about people we've had to remove from our friends lists in the past due to the vitriol that has become the butter on the GOP's bread. Literally yesterday I unfriended a guy I went to high school with. He posted this Peanuts cartoon from the Right Wing News facebook group and I pointed out that while America may be a nation full of Christians, it's not a Christian Nation. I even posted a couple quotes from Washington, Adams and Jefferson to back up my point.

His response,

"That bullshit they never said thows things. I dont no why you luv that nigger but it is FACT that Mooshell hate America and Almighty Jesus God Our Lord and so dose Barack HUSSEIN Obama."

Tell me mcbigski, please tell me, what sort of response should I gave given here? Should I have engaged with this man who I was okay friends with for two years when we were teenagers and who I haven't seen or spoken to in almost 15 years? Or should I have done what I did and considered this enough to terminate our internet friendship?

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Republicans Set to Gain From Laws Requiring Voter IDs

Dude, these voter id laws are your party's work. Perhaps you missed Obama comments on the issue. http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/221446-obama-apathy-not-voter-id-keeps-minorities-from-polls The only reason this is an issue is because liberals won't be able to commit voter fraud if the have to present an id. And it looks like they'll need it... http://m.wsj.com/articles/BL-WB-50128

[TerraPrime]

Dude, these voter id laws are your party's work. Perhaps you missed Obama comments on the issue. http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/221446-obama-apathy-not-voter-id-keeps-minorities-from-polls The only reason this is an issue is because liberals won't be able to commit voter fraud if the have to present an id. And it looks like they'll need it... http://m.wsj.com/articles/BL-WB-50128

Read the Obama quote in context, please.

[Shryke]

Or just read the whole article:

The administration has argued that the laws are politically motivated and intended to prevent poor and minority voters, who tend to vote Democratic, from casting their ballots.

Also, as always, voter fraud in general, let alone voter fraud preventable by voter ID laws, has never been shown to be common enough to even qualify as "staggeringly rare".

[daskool]

Can someone explain this?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2014/10/26/hillary-clinton-businesses-dont-create-jobs-just-speaking-fees/

Don’t let anybody, don’t let anybody tell you that, ah, you know, it’s corporations and businesses

that create jobs

. You know that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.

I take it she's appealing to the batshit wing of the Democratic party? Worried about a challenge from Warren to her left, especially if the economy is in the toilet by 2016?

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Read the Obama quote in context, please.

The context defense. Weak. He destroys the whole argument you libs were trying to make. Should I list the gov benefits that require an Id? A few of which I'm sure the poor that vote for dems are using. Like I stated before, there is only one reason this is a problem for your party. You know it and I know it. Why lie about it? I'm more concerned about who Obama was referring to when he said "our folks"

[MerenthaClone]

The context defense. Weak. He destroys the whole argument you libs were trying to make. Should I list the gov benefits that require an Id? A few of which I'm sure the poor that vote for dems are using. Like I stated before, there is only one reason this is a problem for your party. You know it and I know it. Why lie about it? I'm more concerned about who Obama was referring to when he said "our folks"

How frequently is voter fraud committed, and would said fraud be helped by requiring an ID?

e: Daskool, she's trying to convince democratic voters that she'll only march us towards a ludicrously corporatist state instead of throwing us headlong there.

[Shryke]

The context defense. Weak.

This just says so much about you.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Can someone explain this?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2014/10/26/hillary-clinton-businesses-dont-create-jobs-just-speaking-fees/

I take it she's appealing to the batshit wing of the Democratic party? Worried about a challenge from Warren to her left, especially if the economy is in the toilet by 2016?

Well, obviously you took that out of context. Wait, no you heard it right. You have to remember these people make a living by making people feel like they're victims and being robbed or cheated. Only their uneducated base would be stupid enough to believe it. Most of their base probably doesn't care as long as that unemployment check is in the mailbox at the end of the week.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

This just says so much about you.

"Most of these laws are not preventing the overwhelming majority of folks who don't vote from voting," please tell me how I took that out of context? Or was that the only response you could muster?

[ThinkerX]

To me, it looks like the main purpose of voter ID laws is to keep certain types (poor) and races (black, Hispanic) from voting. Preventing voter fraud is not the main intent of these laws, though that is the narrative sold to the republican base.

Voter apathy is real, serious, and widespread. To my way of thinking, this is what the 'elites' (of both parties) want: a populace mostly disconnected from the political process. That way, come election time, they only have to pander to a few key groups of voters, kept brainwashed with the elite controlled media specific to those voters. More and more, we dwell in a self selecting oligarchy where voting by the masses matters less and less. Eventually, the elites might decide to dump the electoral process altogether, as happened in Rome millennia ago.

Even without that, there is the issue of a growing disconnect between the elites and the common populace: each increasingly views the other as parasites.

[daskool]

How frequently is voter fraud committed, and would said fraud be helped by requiring an ID?

e: Daskool, she's trying to convince democratic voters that she'll only march us towards a ludicrously corporatist state instead of throwing us headlong there.

She's going to get tens of millions from Wall St for her run. She's just about the most pro corporate candidate you could imagine, so obviously the nonsesne she spouted in Boston is her throwing a bone. Is she really that worried about Warren? I get she will run way to the right in the general compared to the primaries but still why make herself a hostage to stupid rhetoric like this? Businesses don't create jobs..

[daskool]

To me, it looks like the main purpose of voter ID laws is to keep certain types (poor) and races (black, Hispanic) from voting. Preventing voter fraud is not the main intent of these laws, though that is the narrative sold to the republican base.

Voter apathy is real, serious, and widespread. To my way of thinking, this is what the 'elites' (of both parties) want: a populace mostly disconnected from the political process. That way, come election time, they only have to pander to a few key groups of voters, kept brainwashed with the elite controlled media specific to those voters. More and more, we dwell in a self selecting oligarchy where voting by the masses matters less and less. Eventually, the elites might decide to dump the electoral process altogether, as happened in Rome millennia ago.

Even without that, there is the issue of a growing disconnect between the elites and the common populace: each increasingly views the other as parasites.

Well I'm Hispanic and I can tell you I don't have any particular issue applying for a driving license. If the worry is voter supression then make ID laws conditional on massive iincreases in funding in voter registration assistance. Personally I'd make voting mandatory, for all elections.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

To me, it looks like the main purpose of voter ID laws is to keep certain types (poor) and races (black, Hispanic) from voting. Preventing voter fraud is not the main intent of these laws, though that is the narrative sold to the republican base.

Voter apathy is real, serious, and widespread. To my way of thinking, this is what the 'elites' (of both parties) want: a populace mostly disconnected from the political process. That way, come election time, they only have to pander to a few key groups of voters, kept brainwashed with the elite controlled media specific to those voters. More and more, we dwell in a self selecting oligarchy where voting by the masses matters less and less. Eventually, the elites might decide to dump the electoral process altogether, as happened in Rome millennia ago.

Even without that, there is the issue of a growing disconnect between the elites and the common populace: each increasingly views the other as parasites.

No the main purpose is to keep them from voting more than once

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

She's going to get tens of millions from Wall St for her run. She's just about the most pro corporate candidate you could imagine, so obviously the nonsesne she spouted in Boston is her throwing a bone. Is she really that worried about Warren? I get she will run way to the right in the general compared to the primaries but still why make herself a hostage to stupid rhetoric like this? Businesses don't create jobs..

Hey, she's had the nomination jerked from her hands before. She should be worried. More over her own issues than a challenger, IMO.

[Shryke]

"Most of these laws are not preventing the overwhelming majority of folks who don't vote from voting," please tell me how I took that out of context? Or was that the only response you could muster?

I quoted the rest of the article that you linked but didn't read that says the opposite of your statements here.

But msotly I'm laughing at you calling context a "defence". And a weak one at that apparently. These are the comments of a person with poor reading skills and/or a lack of ability to debate in good faith. Context is what defines what anything from a word to a sentence to an entire statement mean. To ignore this or to consider is a defensive tactic rather then simply the very fact of what a thing means is to showcase nothing but your own ignorance and desire to take things out of context to make a dishonest (and ultimately false) argument.

[Shryke]

She's going to get tens of millions from Wall St for her run. She's just about the most pro corporate candidate you could imagine, so obviously the nonsesne she spouted in Boston is her throwing a bone. Is she really that worried about Warren? I get she will run way to the right in the general compared to the primaries but still why make herself a hostage to stupid rhetoric like this? Businesses don't create jobs..

She's espousing pretty mainstream left-wing beliefs. Regardless of her corporate ties, she's still left of the american centre and still a democrat.

[Shryke]

No the main purpose is to keep them from voting more than once

Something which never happens. We've searched for it and everything.

On the other hand, we have evidence both of the real effects of these policies and scads of documented evidence of GOP politicians or members letting the veil drop and flat out talking about the real purpose of these, which is to ensure the GOP wins elections. Via suppressing democratic voters.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FE,

Shryke:

Here in South Carolina, judges are appointed by the legislature, not voted in. There is a movement by our attorney general to change this and move judges to be elected by the populace. I disagree with this, as I think it opens judges up to the perils of campaign finance, but your point is an equally dangerous aspect.

I think that appointing judges and not having them elected is a bipartisan issue, and have communicated so to the attorney general

General election of people who are in positions where they are supposed to be acting as neutrals and be above the whims of political fortune is a terrible idea. The election fights within the SC legislature are bad enough without bringing the general populus into it.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

Better yet, eliminate the Senate.

That will never happen short of a general Constitutional Convention with the power to start from scratch.