The Republicans are the Problem

[Revoltingest]

....based upon your rather consistant knee-jerk response...

Geeze....really?

....you rarely, it seems, ever go to bat for the democrats), I think my impressions are justified.

That's understandable. This is a generally left leaning forum, & I respond to what I see, often defending Pubs & Xian fundies.
On another forum I visit, they lean right, & I end up defending Dems & atheists. Have you not seen me credit Obama for not warring with Iran?

Maybe your goal is to only oppose biased outrage, but the result misses the mark.

I never claimed to be competent.....except at engineering....I was pretty good at that.

I know that's how you like to phrase it, but I think it ends up meaning the same thing.

Perhaps the distinction is just more important to me than to you.

I've seen you blaming Obama and regulations, but not so much the conservatives or their policies. No doubt I've missed it.

I think I tend to bore when I drone on about regulation, & both parties being to blame. People tire of my pointing out that the single
recent year when the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) shrank was not during Reagan's or any other Pub's reign, but during Clinton's.
I use this to point out the Republican predilection for big government.
Also, you never saw any of my pre-Obama posts, since I didn't arrive here until 2010. He is prez now, thus he is the lightning rod de jour.

I'm still more interested in the issue of gridlock and obstructionism per the OP, though.

I don't see gridlock as necessarily bad. It all depends upon what might be done if they cooperate.

In this particular issue I have with the media, and with the growing trend among how Americans view politics, I think you exemplify precisely what I have a problem with. It was not an accusation; it was an observation.

You certainly have a plethora of personal observations in this thread!
Criminy, I feel like it's all about me! But worry, not...I won't let it go to me head.

Real news reporting is a lost art. We've replaced it with fluffy opinion pieces and sensationalism masquarading as fair and balanced news.

It seems that way, but I still see what I think is good reporting. One must be skeptical.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You're pretty partisan yourself, you know. The "both sides are equally bad" camp is dogmatic enough to qualify as a political party of its own, I observe.

Yes I think we call them Independents and Libertarians. But let's be clear....they're all pretty much the same underneath all the rhetoric.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes I think we call them Independents and Libertarians. But let's be clear....they're all pretty much the same underneath all the rhetoric.

"Rhetoric" seems a rather dismissive term to apply to anyone here.
We should all observe the polite fiction that those who disagree with us have legitimate opinions too.

 

[Wirey]

We should all observe the polite fiction that those who disagree with us have legitimate opinions too.

Commie.

 

[Revoltingest]

Commie.

The movie based upon Mrs Rev's life......

 

[Dirty Penguin]

"Rhetoric" seems a rather dismissive term to apply to anyone here.
We should all observe the polite fiction that those who disagree with us have legitimate opinions too.

It's without a doubt that I'm a democrat, a lefty....a progressive...Whatever the word they want to use to describe my political stance these days...but when I say "rhetoric" I mean them ALL (republicans, democrats, liberals, independents, libertarians...tea party). While the opinions may be different...to me it's all rhetoric.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's without a doubt that I'm a democrat, a lefty....a progressive...Whatever the word they want to use to describe my political stance these days...but when I say "rhetoric" I mean them ALL (republicans, democrats, liberals, independents, libertarians...tea party). While the opinions may be different...to me it's all rhetoric.

Many are sincere & thoughtful, although that often gets drowned out in all the noise.
People sure get all worked up over a little difference of opinion, eh?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Many are sincere & thoughtful, although that often gets drowned out in all the noise.
People sure get all worked up over a little difference of opinion, eh?

I think it depends on the "opinion". There's many I don't agree with as they don't reflect me. IMO they not small opinions. Take for instance gay marriage, abortion rights, voting rights........

Take voting in Pennsylvania. While I think requiring people to get ID to vote may be tantamount to a poll tax I can see why there would be a requirement to have it. Then again, with no in person voter fraud I'm left scratching my head why there seems to be such a push in a presidential election year for it. When asked by the judge if allowing residents to get theirs over the next two years would that be a problem...the lawyer arguing on behalf of the voter ID had to admit that, that was feasible. I'm sure I know the reason for insisting on voter ID. To quote Mike Turzai ("Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania -- done.").

 

[Revoltingest]

I think it depends on the "opinion". There's many I don't agree with as they don't reflect me. IMO they not small opinions. Take for instance gay marriage, abortion rights, voting rights........

Take voting in Pennsylvania. While I think requiring people to get ID to vote may be tantamount to a poll tax I can see why there would be a requirement to have it. Then again, with no in person voter fraud I'm left scratching my head why there seems to be such a push in a presidential election year for it. When asked by the judge if allowing residents to get theirs over the next two years would that be a problem...the lawyer arguing on behalf of the voter ID had to admit that, that was feasible. I'm sure I know the reason for insisting on voter ID. To quote Mike Turzai ("Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania -- done.").

Voter ID strikes me as good policy. Even Canuckistan requires it.
Voter ID laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We require it for federal benefits which the poor use, so it isn't out of line to do so for voting.
If assistance or work-arounds are needed, then that would be a reasonable accommodation.
(Note: I guarantee that it won't benefit us Libertarians.)

 

[Copernicus]

Voter ID strikes me as good policy. Even Canuckistan requires it.
Voter ID laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We require it for federal benefits which the poor use, so it isn't out of line to do so for voting. If assistance or work-arounds are needed, then that would be a reasonable accommodation.
(Note: I guarantee that it won't benefit us Libertarians.)

If it is such a good idea, then why not require it of all people who vote? People who vote by mail never have to produce a picture ID to get their ballot or mail it in. My home state of Washington, thanks to Republican diligence and Democratic stupid complicity, has now gone over to all-mail ballots, because Republicans have historically tended to use that method more often than Democrats. Before they took away the polling places, I was required to produce a picture ID in order to be allowed the privilege of voting. Nowadays, I receive a ballot in the mail and submit it by mail. No picture ID required. Somebody just eyeballs a signature on the outside envelope and compares it with a copy of my signature that the state has on record. Someone could easily forge my signature and use my ballot to cast votes for the Libertarian Party (which is the only way that party will ever get my vote).

 

[1robin]

If it is such a good idea, then why not require it of all people who vote? People who vote by mail never have to produce a picture ID to get their ballot or mail it in. My home state of Washington, thanks to Republican diligence and Democratic stupid complicity, has now gone over to all-mail ballots, because Republicans have historically tended to use that method more often than Democrats. Before they took away the polling places, I was required to produce a picture ID in order to be allowed the privilege of voting. Nowadays, I receive a ballot in the mail and submit it by mail. No picture ID required. Somebody just eyeballs a signature on the outside envelope and compares it with a copy of my signature that the state has on record. Someone could easily forge my signature and use my ballot to cast votes for the Libertarian Party (which is the only way that party will ever get my vote).

I think that we should require IDs. I also think we should have some sort of test to establish the competance of a person to make a informed decision. I also suggest that if you do not pay taxes then you should not vote. Yes I know it will not work, but it is nice to wish.

 

[Revoltingest]

If it is such a good idea, then why not require it of all people who vote? People who vote by mail never have to produce a picture ID to get their ballot or mail it in.

Good call! It should be addressed too.

My home state of Washington, thanks to Republican diligence and Democratic stupid complicity, has now gone over to all-mail ballots, because Republicans have historically tended to use that method more often than Democrats. Before they took away the polling places, I was required to produce a picture ID in order to be allowed the privilege of voting. Nowadays, I receive a ballot in the mail and submit it by mail. No picture ID required. Somebody just eyeballs a signature on the outside envelope and compares it with a copy of my signature that the state has on record. Someone could easily forge my signature and use my ballot to cast votes for the Libertarian Party (which is the only way that party will ever get my vote).

Hmmm.....I sense the possibility of a coup.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Voter ID strikes me as good policy. Even Canuckistan requires it.
Voter ID laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We require it for federal benefits which the poor use, so it isn't out of line to do so for voting.
If assistance or work-arounds are needed, then that would be a reasonable accommodation.
(Note: I guarantee that it won't benefit us Libertarians.)

It's a policy that's not everywhere here in the US and the states trying to mandate it (i.e. Pennsylvania) doesn't have an in person voter fraud problem. It's kind of weird why all of a sudden it has to be implemented in a presidential election year. This wasn't an issue 2 and 4 years ago.

They want you to have a state ID with an expiration date on it. Military ID won't work. Student ID won't work unless they get a date stamped on it. Congress ID won't even work. All of these lack an expiration date. I'm a state government employee and my ID, even though it has a holographic county seal it won't work. My old federal government ID and federal government contractors ID wouldn't work under this law. Personally I feel as though it is designed in this election year to disenfranchise voters. For many who were born in other states and those born a very long time ago it is very difficult to get their (SS cards and birth certificate) in time to be able to get their ID. Many areas, do to local government cut backs, aren't all that close to a DMV. Many take public transportation and don't have or have never had a state ID.

Personally I don't see what the rush is. And when that question was presented the lawyer. It hasn't been an issue before so what's the rush...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I think that we should require IDs. I also think we should have some sort of test to establish the competance of a person to make a informed decision. I also suggest that if you do not pay taxes then you should not vote. Yes I know it will not work, but it is nice to wish.

I think your suggestions are unreasonable. Who would determine who is fit or not to make an inform decision to vote?

 

[Revoltingest]

It's a policy that's not everywhere here in the US and the states trying to mandate it (i.e. Pennsylvania) doesn't have an in person voter fraud problem. It's kind of weird why all of a sudden it has to be implemented in a presidential election year. This wasn't a year 2 and 4 years ago.

They want you to have a state ID. Military ID won't work. Student ID won't work. Congress ID won't even work. All of these lack an expiration date. I'm a state government employee and my ID, even though it has a holographic county seal it won't work. My old federal government ID and federal government contractors ID wouldn't work under this law. Personally I feel as though it is designed in this election year to disenfranchise voters. For many who were born in other states and those born a very long time ago it is very difficult to get their (SS cards and birth certificate) in time to be able to get their ID. Many areas, do to local government cut backs, aren't all that close to a DMV. Many take public transportation and don't have or have never had a state ID.

Personally I don't see what the rush is. And when that question was presented the lawyer. It hasn't been an issue before so what's the rush...

I can't speak to the politics of the argument.
It's not my party & I'll carp if I want to. (That could be a song!)
Government should hire me to design the system.
I could fix those bugs....& I work for bacon!

 

[1robin]

I think your suggestions are unreasonable. Who would determine who is fit or not to make an inform decision to vote?

Of course they are. Reason is unreasonable in politics. There is however no argument that some sort of competancy is very appropriate. It is of course beyond our power (or will) to determine where the line should be drawn.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I can't speak to the politics of the argument.
It's not my party & I'll carp if I want to. (That could be a song!)
Government should hire me to design the system.
I could fix those bugs....& I work for bacon!

I think it's time for an ID bus. Design a new Voter ID card that has all the (Current Registered) voter's information needed along with the precinct they vote in. Go to all the neighborhoods in Pennsylvania and have them come to the bus, take their picture and print it free of charge.

I think we can have various locations that be setup to register people to vote, take their picture and give them a card. I think it can be setup to do it at the court house, post office...etc.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Of course they are. Reason is unreasonable in politics. There is however no argument that some sort of competancy is very appropriate. It is of course beyond our power (or will) to determine where the line should be drawn.

Then why even suggest it...

 

[Wirey]

I think that we should require IDs. I also think we should have some sort of test to establish the competance of a person to make a informed decision. I also suggest that if you do not pay taxes then you should not vote. Yes I know it will not work, but it is nice to wish.

Define competent.

 

[1robin]

Define competent.

I was not making a serious recomendation. It was more of a theoretical wish. Are you somehow suggesting that the voting process is enhanced by the maximum amount of ignorance and any suggestion to limit it is not productive. How about reading and taking a simple test on the constitution. The applicability and the concept are two seperate issues.