US Politics- regardless of party politicans say stupid things

[TerraPrime]

What truly amazes me isn't that politicians would pull this sort of stuff. It's the ease with which their constituency accepts it. Gives me real pause as to how many people truly believe in democracy, and how easy it is for a dictatorship to take hold.

That's why we need lots and lots of guns, no?

But yes, i think it's is unintentionally hilarious that the U.S.often look down on developing countries for their lack of proper election protocols or alleged vigor of their electoral system, up to and including expending monetary and human assets to establish democracy elsewhere, while at home, the electoral process is under direct and unabashed assault by one of the two leading political parties. The world is a funny place.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

SerG,

As to my preference, I favor a federal system with an objective competency prerequisite that, in the current political environment, would certainly filter out far more Republicans than Democrats.  So I suppose the answer to the question is yes, but only because the Republican party has become such a cesspool of stupidity and insanity.  I don't prefer a system that favors one candidate over another based solely on their ideology.

That's what you said in the last thread. How would a "competency requirement" to hold public office be different from a competency requirement to cast a ballot? How democractic is such a requirement for voters or office holders?

[Ormond]

Last night on the Maddow show I saw a reporting of the recent surge of efforts across many states where the Republicans are trying to pass laws that will suppress voters in the college age bracket. This ranges from:

• adding tax to the parents if their children register to vote at the college town
  
• banning students from voting if they are paying out of state tuition
  
• blocking universities from being able to charge out-of-state tuition on students who register to vote at the town
  

I don't understand how the third one of the above fits with the first two. It seems to be directly contradictory to the second and it would seem to me to be a way to encourage college students to register to vote in the place they are attending school rather than the other way around.

[TerraPrime]

I don't understand how the third one of the above fits with the first two. It seems to be directly contradictory to the second and it would seem to me to be a way to encourage college students to register to vote in the place they are attending school rather than the other way around.

They're from different states, not within the same state.

The first item is from North Carolina.

The second one is in Indiana.

The third one is from Ohio.

[Ormond]

They're from different states, not within the same state.

The first item is from North Carolina.

The second one is in Indiana.

The third one is from Ohio.

OK, but if the Republican politicians in Ohio believe that their option is going to suppress college students from voting in university communities, they would seem to be off their rocker to me.

[The Undead Martyr]

This is one of the reasons why I cannot abide mainstream Republicans.

Last night on the Maddow show I saw a reporting of the recent surge of efforts across many states where the Republicans are trying to pass laws that will suppress voters in the college age bracket. This ranges from:

• adding tax to the parents if their children register to vote at the college town
  
• banning students from voting if they are paying out of state tuition
  
• blocking universities from being able to charge out-of-state tuition on students who register to vote at the town
  

All of this is a pretty transparent attempt to stop precincts covered by college towns to go for the Democrats. The fact that it is against the law of the land to disenfranchise college students based on their residency is of apparent no concern to these Republicans. If ever there is a piece of evidence, if we need more, to show that Republicans are more interested in winning than governing, or leading, or even representing their constituents, this will be it.

It's ok to want to win but it's not ok to try to win by actually suppressing votes. This distinction is lost on the current GOP leadership across this nation.

(Link. This I think links to the relevant video clip. It's 10 minutes long and gives a good historical perspective. But if you want just the recent bits, it starts around the 7 minute mark.)

The whole voter ID nonsense makes me sick. Then we have the 47% crap.... the thought that Obama "bought" people with "health care" is simply ludicrous.

SerG,

That's what you said in the last thread. How would a "competency requirement" to hold public office be different from a competency requirement to cast a ballot? How democractic is such a requirement for voters or office holders?

The irony being that the Founders were nearly all elitists... though to be fair the literacy rate was, what, 20%? Kind of hard to hold public office without being able to read...

that said,

[Tempra]

OK, but if the Republican politicians in Ohio believe that their option is going to suppress college students from voting in university communities, they would seem to be off their rocker to me.

Perhaps the measure is meant to influence colleges. If colleges cannot fleece charge out-of-state students more based on their residency, then there is little incentive beyond general diversity to accept them in the first place.

In reality, don't most out-of-state students become residents of the state where they attend college to save significant amounts of money? I know I did.

[TerraPrime]

OK, but if the Republican politicians in Ohio believe that their option is going to suppress college students from voting in university communities, they would seem to be off their rocker to me.

The rationale, I suspect, is this:

Colleges/Universties are hotbeds of liberal activism --> Students there organize to vote --> They vote predominantly Democrat --> We need to suppress the voting rate of college students --> they wouldn't be so active if their school fights them on the activism --> we will make the schools fight the students by threatening their funding --> we are going to cut their funding anway so this is a win-win-win for us

Plus, you know, it's Ohio. They can always bring in the National Guard if the students get unruly.

[Spring Bass]

Have Govt workers been complaining about it? I don't know, but I just don't see the GOP getting behind a bill that would screw big businesses out of money

I've worked as a full-time government employee, and I hated it. The annoying thing about comp time not just that they could withhold pay for hours worked for a period of time longer than the pay period, but that when you actually used your comp time, your effective pay rate was only 50% of your regular wages for the hours worked on average.

Think about it - let's say you get 3 hours of comp time, at 1.5 times pay. Then to use them, you have to take three hours off of regular work, where you would be paid at the regular rate. The net result is that you only get the equivalent of 0.5 times the hours you worked to get the comp time in terms of net pay. You'd be crazy not to choose to take the overtime every time, but they don't let government employees make that choice - we had to take the comp time.

[Mr. E]

Think about it - let's say you get 3 hours of comp time, at 1.5 times pay. Then to use them, you have to take three hours off of regular work, where you would be paid at the regular rate. The net result is that you only get the equivalent of 0.5 times the hours you worked to get the comp time in terms of net pay. You'd be crazy not to choose to take the overtime every time, but they don't let government employees make that choice - we had to take the comp time.

I have comp time and I love it, honestly. But then again the city I work for isn't full of douchebags so your mileage may vary.

I am confused about your illustration though. Are the 3 hours you earned at the 1.5 rate? Or are the 3 hours the base rate to be calculated at 1.5? Because the pay-off to comp time is that you're earning time off equal to an "overtime" rate. That isthe 3 hours at 1.5 would give you 4.5 hours of comp. Or if you had three total, it would be 2 hours worked total.

[Inigima]

My employer is not hard to get time off from, I can totally use comp time if I want. I just already don't use all my vacation time and I'd rather have the money.

[Ormond]

The rationale, I suspect, is this:

Colleges/Universties are hotbeds of liberal activism --> Students there organize to vote --> They vote predominantly Democrat --> We need to suppress the voting rate of college students --> they wouldn't be so active if their school fights them on the activism --> we will make the schools fight the students by threatening their funding --> we are going to cut their funding anway so this is a win-win-win for us

Plus, you know, it's Ohio. They can always bring in the National Guard if the students get unruly.

Oh dear, Terra, I don't think you would have been so flippant with that last comment if you had actually been an undergraduate student on a campus during the Kent State incident like I was. That was entirely too scary a time in my life.

Of course any fooling around with voting in regard to "out of state tuition" is only going to affect students attending public universities, because private schools don't have separate rates.

[Ser Greguh]

That's what you said in the last thread. How would a "competency requirement" to hold public office be different from a competency requirement to cast a ballot? How democractic is such a requirement for voters or office holders?

This is such a bizarre comparison that I don't really even know how to answer. We already allow people who don't have law degrees to vote for judges and district attorneys. Holding public office carries very different prerequisites from casting ballots for people who are running for said public offices.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

SerG,

How much control would setting those "objective standards" give to those who set such standards?

[Sturn]

My workplace offers both comp-time and over-time, both at the 1.5 rate. While the CT is preferred over the OT, it is the employee's choice which to receive. The CT can be banked for a while so it can be used to take an entire day off, not just a couple hours. Quite a few police are in the military reserves/guards, so these usually save up their CT to be used during the monthly drill time and still get a full week's paycheck. Of course, due to the nature of our job, you need approval to take the time off.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Looks like Sanford (he of the Appalachian Trail) is going to win that election in South Carolina. The mind truly boggles.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

RBPL,

Lots of people like him. He was elected Governor twice. That said I still have Joe Wlison as my rep.

:(

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

Al Gore, Richer than Romney?

Are you shocked by this?

[Tempra]

RBPL,

Lots of people like him. He was elected Governor twice. That said I still have Joe Wlison as my rep.

:(

You lie!!

[Lightsnake]

RBPL,

Lots of people like him. He was elected Governor twice. That said I still have Joe Wlison as my rep.

:(

He was elected twice before he betrayed almost every principle he ever ran on by irresponsibly leaving his state with no leader to run down to Argentina to sleep with a woman not his life and then portray himself as the tragic hero while completely masking how he once said that infidelity made one unfit for office. Oh, and pretending to be fiscally responsible while doing this on taxpayer dime.

But it's okay because he's a Republican to those idiots in that district.

And Joe "worships a racist segregationist who still fathered an illegitimate child with a black woman" Wilson? Fuck that guy.