Politics Who's Gonna Win?

Something tells me that this wasn't a problem that would have been solved by an ID requirement, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.

I suggest you take your qualms up with MSNBC. As far as I can tell, none of us work there, so it doesn't make sense for you to imply that we agree with the things some asshole on MSNBC said.

How frequently is it used? Give me a ballpark figure. Otherwise you're just playing the race card card.

 

It is explainable. But even that as a given, it is not uncommon to have conflicting interests. I bet even you a few - so what is the point? Are Republicans somehow unique in this regard?

I heard that Rush made an announcement today that he is going to start using Twitter - I wonder if he reads TFP and has recognized it is not the 90's anymore. I bring this up because in the context of war, one actually needs an enemy, rather than being at war with one's self. Liberals for some reason need a person like Rush to be at war with or from some reason they can not get motivated. Most conservatives I personally know almost never think the way they are portrayed to think in the media. So, the media uses a person like Rush to create their false wars. That's my theory, nothing more, nothing less.

P.s. - I asked a teenager yesterday if he ever voluntarily listened to AM radio - he said that he normally doesn't have time to listen to radio in the morning.
--- merged: Mar 15, 2012 at 3:24 PM ---

Imagine at the end of the voting day. Person A checks to see who has not voted. Persons B...Z, go in and vote for those who have not voted...I bet if that ever did happen, and I am not saying it did, checking for valid ID just might make a difference. But this is getting outside the point, even if people have real concerns, any effort to address those concerns would be "war".

 

Imagine at the end of the voting day person A, who is a corrupt election official, adds a trunk full of fraudulent ballots to the pile. IDs don't matter here because the whole system is corrupt.

 

Ace intentionally or ignorantly misrepresented the issue of voter ID. The Republicans in numerous states have gone beyond the necessity of an ID, which is already required in most states, to mandating a "state" issued photo ID (drivers license, passport), which disproportionately impacts low income minorities who dont own a car or drive or dont travel outside the US.

 

ace,

Did you know that in nature, certain types of birds have been observed to fly in a V-shaped pattern? This pattern does not always have equal length on the trailing sides, and miraculously will turn as a single unit as if it were in constant telepathic communication. What is perhaps more interesting is that occasionally, the lead bird will cycle to the back of one side of the V, while the next bird will simply move up to the position at the apex of the formation. This apparently happens without any verbal or nonverbal communication. If you understand the basis of this behavior, you will understand my perspective on politics, and your political positions in particular. This is a simple example, exacted from nature, which illustrates a fundamental point of social behavior. Do you agree?

 

Sadly, the equation does include racism.


--- merged: Mar 15, 2012 at 9:20 PM ---
Ace, if I don't drive or otherwise have a need for a photo ID, should I be refused the privilege, as a US Citizen, to vote as long as I have some form of ID or my voter registration card?

The current system, which has been in place at least since I began voting (40 years), designates a polling location for each voter. Volunteers who man the polls have a roster of all registered voters and they scratch each voter's name off the list as they arrive to place their vote. Where is the flaw in this system which makes a state issued photo ID a necessity? Most voter inconsistency is due to mistakes in registration and in some cases, an ignorance of the regulations.

The existence of some grand voter fraud conspiracy has been fabricated to justify the "remedy". The fact that numerous non-partisan studies have found no evidence of such fraud, leads sensible people to question the real purpose for requiring such strict voter requirements.

Rush Limbaugh would prefer his listeners not know the facts and so informs them that voter fraud at polling stations is rampant. This is how he assists the Republican conservative movement in their subterfuge campaign. But he's harmless, right?

 

Is what I wrote confusing? People are people, we all have interests that are occasionally in conflict. This is not some revelation. I simply don't understand why you would single out Republicans in this regard, so I felt the need to state the obvious.

Yes.
Yes.

In 2008 Democrat Party/Obama's focus was Bush.
In 2010 the Democrat Party focus was Palin and the Tea Party.
Recently the Democrat Party focus has been Rush.

I spend time reading/listening to liberal arguments and what they focus on-the pattern is to build up a false opponent or a false narrative and then demagogue on that false opponent or narrative. Yesterday David Axelrod, Obama campaign strategist, proclaimed Rush Limbaugh the de facto head of the Republican Party. Putting issues in perspective, Rush should be the last thing anyone on the Obama team should be thinking about and the last thing an interviewer should be asking about. I bet even most high-shco0lers could come up with enough higher priority issues facing this country to fill hours and hours of interview time without ever needing to bring up a AM talk radio show host.

When I have a theory, I state it as such. Do you? In the area of giving advise, get your own house in order first - if you expect to have credibility.

Spending time talking to people about issues of the day often proves very informative. Just like I interact with you, I interact with others...I ask questions, seek understanding, share information, etc. If you suggest something is wrong with that, it is your problem not mine. Mocking it only makes you look small minded - it does not effect me in anyway other than helping me in my observations of people and how they respond to issues.

 

Assume, a proposed solution is totally wrong and won't fix a problem and actually create other problems - does that change the persons motivation for wanting to fix something they perceive as a problem? And what purpose does it serve to distort a person's real motivation? Are some motivated by "hate", you bet. are most, motivated by "hate", no! I would go further and say only a very small minority is motivated by "hate". Even when the majority is complicit is a "hateful" policy or system, I would argue that their motivation if more related to fear than "hate".
--- merged: Mar 16, 2012 at 2:07 PM ---

I am not frustrated. I find being frank and to the point alleviates frustration. I am not the one posting pictures of stick-men banging their heads against walls. I am not the one mocking others. I am not the one initiating personal attacks. I am not the one saying how someone is unrealistic, while continuing to read what they write and responding......
--- merged: Mar 16, 2012 at 2:14 PM ---

I am not familiar with propasal in every state, this is true. I have a level of ignorance on the subject. If anyone assumed I was an expert on the issue, I offer my apology. Just curious, did anyone actually think I was an expert on this subject? Did anyone actually think the point of my initial post was regarding voting rights specifically?

DC, I ask you a question specifically - Why are Republican's proposing voter ID type of legislation?

 

What are you talking about? Who here said that voter ID efforts are a result of hate? I'm pretty sure they're a result of math, but that's just me.

 

No. I do think there is a general tendency for people to respond to common good with sacrifice, however, in the human world I think we see a higher need for self-reward or self fulfillment. Simply put - what is in it for me. Once people fail to see enough value in that proposition the tendency for people to respond to common good deteriorates quickly. I don't see that happening in nature. My common view is that people will tend to do what is in their own best interest, and politically speaking, political leaders need to respond to that first and foremost. In the context of a big political question, I think something like gay marriage requires the proponents of gay marriage to respond or make the case that their freedom of choice is in the best interest of others. I think as some make the case arguing that those opposed to gay marriage are homophobic is counter-productive.
--- merged: Mar 16, 2012 at 4:33 PM ---

One thing I stated was a difference in focus on "process v results" which I also see as a "style v. function" question, you and I, we think different. I know it, I assume you do too. I don't make judgements on that, if that is your choice so be it. I gain a better understanding of it as we go. My wife thinks different than I do as well, I actually think the way that I think is outside of the norm. I enjoy exploring those differences. This observation is not fallacious. Of course, I am fallible and can be subject to fallacious argument and thought, as can others. When I am wrong and it is pointed out, I will acknowledge it. However, I do not respond well to personal attacks, mockery and what I consider intellectually dishonesty. I have that weakness and I have let that be known. Most times when I make an initial post in a thread, it can easily be forgotten and fade into the background.
--- merged: Mar 16, 2012 at 4:39 PM ---

Some make the argument that voter ID laws being proposed or that have recently passed are racist and motivated by racism. I think a very small percent of people in the US today are racist and motivated by racism, I consider that a form of "hate". Others may be complicit in a policy or law that has what is called a disparate impact (meaning it disproportionately impacts a particular race/sex/religion/etc) but are not racists and are not motivated by "hate". I think it is important to know and understand the differences.

 

So? Is anyone here making that argument? You're wasting space responding to arguments that haven't been presented by the people with whom you're interacting. Nobody cares about the opinions of some guy you saw on MSNBC. It is telling that you've found yourself so influenced by someone on TV while at the same time attempting to claim that Rush Limbaugh has no significant influence anywhere.

I think that the impetus behind voter ID stems from a desire to disenfranchise certain demographic groups that tend to vote democrat. The fact that many of these demographic groups aren't white seems tangential to me.

 

Photo-voter ID laws, particularly in swing states where they have recently been enacted or proposed, are purely political given that those supporting or proposing the laws have not provided any evidence of voter fraud. It is a partisan "solution" to a non-existing problem. The party that claims to be for small government, less regulation and getting government out of out lives recognizes that imposing such a mandate will disproportionally suppress minorities and to a lesser extent, seniors - demographic groups that generally favor the other party.

The only person raising the issue of race or racism in this discussion has been Ace. And NO, I dont think Ace is racist. However, I do think every time he is asked "where's the beef," he just throws pink slime into the mix.

 

So it should follow that those in the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's would have or should have had to demonstrate that their demand for full equality was going to be a benefit to the majority whites.

That one gets a big old BULLSHIT from me, Ace.
--- merged: Mar 16, 2012 at 5:44 PM ---

Political leaders need to respond politically, first and foremost, to the selfish needs of the individual? Is that correct?

Boy, have I had it wrong.

 

​

I always thought one of the cornerstones of the Constitution was to expressly protect the rights of the minority from the potential tyranny of majority rule. I was unaware of the qualifier that the minority must also demonstrate how it is in the best interest of the majority.

 

In all honesty, to look to the president for jobs to be created, inflation to be slowed or gas prices to lower is unrealistic, partisan posturing.

While the president can ask for policies to work on the infrastructure, thus creating jobs, it is up to Congress to approve the spending.

The gas prices will fluctuate if someone looks at someone the wrong way in the Middle East, we just need to deal with it or the president needs to work on a true alternative fuel program that is not Solindra. Again though, while the president can outline these programs it is up to Congress to approve them. Inflation goes hand in hand with oil prices, after all it is the #1 way we transport goods, using diesel.

The Constitution outlines that the president is to set forth the year's plans and bills he would like passed, the bills then got to committees in the Congress and are debated and become laws or not. (Hell anyone who watched School House Rocks should remember that). The Supreme Court only reviews laws to make sure they are Constitutional.

So the president is nothing more than a figure head who theoretically proposes bills to congress. Congress then becomes the ones who debate the bill, (this is where the pork is added... NOT by the president).

BTW today I heard the stupidest thing come out of a GOP on a talk show that I have ever heard. This man said and I quote, " Mark my words, If Obama gets re elected and gets to stack the supreme court he'll do away with the law that holds him in office for just 2 terms, The Supreme Court will allow him to become a dictator, the court set precedent with FDR." Mike Trivisonno (the host) was either just as stupid or trying to be nice said, "That is a possibility."

I am not sure what amendment # it is, but I know term limit for tan elected president is two. The MOST ANY MAN/WOMAN can serve is 10 years, period end of story.2 years replacing the president should he die or resign in office and then 2 elected terms. The only ex presidents alive that could run are Carter and Bush I. Since the president's term limit is set by an amendment written AFTER FDR, it is impossible for the Supreme Court to suspend that law. It'd be like the Supreme Court suspending the amendment that allows 18 year olds to vote or suspending any of the Bill Of Rights Amendments. They can't. Nor did the Supreme Courts of FDR have any say in how many times he could run for president.

 

Got a kick out of this, thought I'd pass iy along. I'm ready to sign up...anyone else?



BEST THING I HAVE HEARD YET.....From a senior citizen around 80 yrs. of age.

The​

Fix​

​

​

There recently was an article in the St. Petersburg , Fl. Times. The Business Section ​

asked readers for ideas on: "How Would You Fix the ​

Economy?" I think this guy nailed it!​

​

​

​

Dear ​

Mr. President,​

​

​

​

Please find ​

below my suggestion for fixing America 's economy. ​

Instead of giving billions of dollars to companies ​

that will squander the money on lavish parties and ​

unearned bonuses, use the following plan.​

​

​

You can call it the ​

"Patriotic Retirement ​

Plan":​

​

​

​

There are about 40 ​

million people over 50 in the work force. Pay them ​

$1 million apiece severance for early retirement ​

with the following ​

stipulations:​

​

​

​

1) They MUST ​

retire. Forty million job openings -​

Unemployment ​

fixed.​

​

​

​

2) They MUST buy a new ​

AMERICAN Car. Forty million cars ordered -​

Auto Industry fixed.



3) They MUST
either buy a house or pay off their mortgage -
Housing Crisis fixed.



It can't
get any easier than
that!!



P.S. If more money is
needed, have all members in Congress pay their
taxes..



Mr. President, while
you're at it, make Congress retire on Social
Security and Medicare. I'll bet both programs would
be fixed pronto!

 

Similar logical arguments are being made, basically a separation from what is usually the clearly stated reasons for a political position compared to one that is either made up or over emphasized. Obama does it himself constantly.
--- merged: Mar 19, 2012 at 4:07 PM ---

I stated what the basis of my post was. I understand a response about my sourcing MSNBC, or MSNBC being representative of general sentiment etc., but what I shared was but one of many examples. I did not place any special emphasis on it. I just don't avoid the issues of race, I discuss them as they come up in context. If any want to pretend there is not a strong undercurrent of racial tension is being pretentious, in my opinion. There are many who legitimately feel that a significant portion of Obama's issues are grounded in a racial problem in this country. If you think it is just me, I can suggest a few things that may help you realize that it is not just me.
--- merged: Mar 19, 2012 at 4:13 PM ---

Wasn't that part of the strategy followed by MLK?

The answer is obviously yes, I put my point in the form of a question because of the tone in your response to me. Your view that I am full of b.s., when I am not and that I have historical fact on my side makes me wonder what you actually think MLK's strategy was.
--- merged: Mar 19, 2012 at 4:23 PM ---

In this context, no one is obligated to do anything! The issue from my point of view is, what is the best way to get the result you want? How do you make your case? How do you win support of those who are indifferent or who do not feel strongly about the issue one way or the other? I am again amazed by the tone of this response. The point is so obvious to me, that I think it need not be expressly stated. The fundamental art of persuasion - I suggest reading or listening to Dale Carnegies', How to Win Friends and Influence People. Here is a link to a summary:

How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie

Note Part II, item 5.

Should be required reading in schools.

{added}PS - thinking of 1936, and the hey day of radio - I found this link:

RAB.com | Yearl Revenue Trends

Shows some recent radio advertising trends $23 billion in 2007, $17 billion in 2011. Looks like people are leaving radio and that people with money recognize radio's declining influence. Looks like some, even on Obama's team have not got the message. Perhaps, someone should send them a Tweet.