The Politics Thread

[Wales2004]

It a state wants to issue a free special voter I.D. card then I see no problem but the card should only be used for voting. If people need identification for other purposes then they should go through the regular process for obtaining that I.D. I just think it would be appropriate to issue this special card at the time new voters register and implement a program for distribution to voters that are already registered.

I do not see the purpose of any single individual showing up to a location to vote as someone else. Plus you can obtain fake I.D. if you;re that desperate. In order for fake voters to make a difference, there has to be a significant number of them and not just one or two here and there.

[GoldenDogs]

Thoughts, anyone, on the God and Jersusalem debacle at the DNC yesterday?

An ideological fight on the floor of the convention, suggesting deep divisions within the Democratic party on the acceptance of religion and our ties to Israel, is easily the biggest story of both conventions this election year.

[Wales2004]

Now you're making me laugh again. Who knows how many of those delegates actually knew what was going on? I think the bigger story was the fact that a change in the platform was even requested. I am inclined to agree with the "know it alls" and spin doctors who make the point that it is better for a candidate to try to reform the platform than to say that your party's platform is not representative of your platform.

Anyway the Republicans seem to have falsely designated themselves as the party of God not the Democrats who in all their liberal glory are bound to have a number of atheists among them. Oooh and they probably have people among them who aren't anti-Palestinian. What if they even have people of Palestinian descent in their party as well? Imagine that.

Since the pilgrims came here to escape religious persecution then it only seems fair that people have religious freedom. I don't get the whole separation of church and state inconsistencies but that is a whole other topic.

That whole voting three times debacle looked bad and there did not seem to be a two-thirds consensus so he might as well have pretended there was the first time around and saved himself the embarrassment but I doubt average Joe voter cares that much about Israel though he might be appalled that people weren't embracing having God all over their platform.

Maybe this is a big deal for Fox News and some Republicans who need something over which to make a big deal but I'm guessing the rest of what constitutes the media is busy ooooohing over Clinton, planning Hilary Clinton's run in 2016, and speculating over whether Joe Biden will say more crazy things and Barack Obama will deliver the "bestest" ever speech.

[marceline]

I think you're projecting. If you want to see deep divisions in a party on display, I refer you to the GOP's Ron Paul supporters. Or are we just going to ignore how the GOP has been trying to smack them down for the last year.

The Dems were wimps for caving on the God thing but that's how they are. Regardless, as of right now, Bill Clinton is the biggest story of both conventions.

[Ann_SS]

LOL! You would think that a Republican would know the difference considering that George and Jeb Bush with the assistance their allies committed election fraud in Florida 2000.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Ann_SS

[quartermainefan]

Yes, if you watch Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. But according to Charles Krauthhammer on FOX Bill Clinton's speech was a failure, so who in their right mind would listen to anything anyone says on FOX?

[ReddFoxx]

The point is, the incident wouldn't have been stopped by voter ID and mainly involved politicians. When fraud happens in elections, it's mainly politicians doing it, not random voters.

ID is fine as long as it isn't used to try and hamper certain constituencies from voting.

[Max]

Alphanguy, I'd like to get a job corporate accounting, but the relatively few job openings available either are for jobs that I am over or underqualified for. Of course, I wouldn't personally have a problem taking a job that I am overqualified for, but nobody hires such people for "lesser" jobs for fear that they will use that job as a temporary stepping stone. (During the last 18 months, I've applied to hundreds of accounting jobs that I either was under or overqualified for, and I know full well that I have no chance of getting those jobs, since I am not what they are looking for. The only reason why I even bother applying at all is because I'll lose my unemployment benefits if I don't.)

I'm hoping too that the economy gets better regardless of who wins the election, but most thought that the unemployment picture would not be so bad right now. (Thus, while I could be wrong, I have no reason to hope that things will be any better during a second Obama term.) Regardless, I sincerely appreciate your concern and I am glad of your good personal fortune. Somebody as smart, hard-working, and nice as you certainly deserves it.

Of course, most everybody who runs for president has such a huge ego, to the point that such person is probably concerned with his own well-being above all else. But, Obama has failed to do an adequate job, so it is time to give somebody new a chance. Obama's own economic advisers projected that if is stimulus was passed (which it was), unemployment would currently be around 6 percent (and not over 8).

I know that the president alone cannot be held responsible for the economy. Obama gladly reminds us that his failures are the fault of Bush and the Republicans in Congress. But, he has had a Democratic Senate for his entire term, and a Democratic House for his first two years. He also refused to get a new chairman of the Federal Reserve when he had the chance, and instead re-appointed Ben Bernanke.

Whenever something goes right (like the auto bailout), the president has no problem taking all the credit. But all he does is blame others for the things which have gone wrong, which is absolutely cowardly. Personally, I think that blaming Mitch McConnell (the freaking MINORITY leader of the Senate) for our problems is the lamest excuse of all. So he said that he wants Obama to be a one-term president. Does anybody honestly believe that Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich didn't want the same thing for Bill Clinton? Yet, that didn't stop Clinton from working effectively with Congressional Republicans.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Max

[Wales2004]

A Republican Ooops you said right mind...

Just kidding!!!

[quartermainefan]

As always republicans underesitimated Bill. "Too long" "too wonky" "even washington insiders eyes started to glaze"...well not according to neilsen where Bill beat the NFL football game. Clinton is basically the closest thing politics has to a rock star. If they got rid of the amendment he would easily win a third term. It is just a shame Hillary didn't win so Bill could be backdoored into power.

[Bright Eyes]

Why was that amendment created in the first place? I know it wasn't always that way.

[JaneAusten]

It was politically motivated for the most part and was gradually pushed once Roosevelt was elected to a third term. The ammendment was pased I think a few years after Roosevelt died. While not enforced by an ammendment prior to then, it was widely acknowledged that the president would serve no more than 2 terms.. I think many felt Roosevelt gained too much power due to his longevity in the office. The irony is that according to Doris Kearns Goodwins book on the Roosevelt's, "No Ordinary Time", Roosevelt allegedly did not want to run for a third term and was pressured into running due to the instability in the world climate because of World War 2. He was widely loved and respected by the American people and it was felt the country needed his leadership and strength during that time.

Every time a president serves that certain factions of the political hierarchy gravitate to, there tends to be talk about repealing it. It was talked about when Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton served.

[Money]

Watching Bill Clinton lastnight was political poetry. And unfortunately his magnetic presence proved that Obama needed that boost that only he Bill could provide.

On this agree we agree. Having had both he should have made more progress and he used it as a cushion. It's not until he lost The House and called it a "shellacking" he truly realized people were no longer mesmerized by his hope and change speeches and demanded real change, however you cannot even compare the earlier Republicans to these new breed who flat out does. not. want. anything. to do with Obama. At least some of those earlier Republicans were still willing to compromise on certain issues with Clinton. These Republicans do not want to compromise and they are infintely not interested in bipartisan policies for the sake of moving the country forward. What part of holding a meetinng the day of Obama's inaguaration to get rid of him, not returning any of his phone calls, and declining meetings at the White House is par the course? McConnell publically stating their idea of compromise is if Obama does things their way is a deep level of arrogance, hatred and disrespect.

And frankly, Obama hasn't gotten enough credit for the auto bailout nor Bin Laden's death because people have already forgotten. I guarantee you if it was Bush, Americans would still be giving that man a free pass at a third re-election after the montrosity of his presidency. It truly amazes me how many avid reminders Americans need - even through a slow economic recovery - to remember where they were four years, let alone eight years ago.

[Money]

Dems were nervous and 'pubs were hoping America's love of football would cause folks to tune out and Clinton delivered like I knew he would. He loved every minute of the crowd hanging on his every word and when he first strolled on stage with that cool swagger and [!@#$%^&*] eating grin I knew he was going to kill it. And yes, he's a political rock star. And he knows it.

[GoldenDogs]

Come on, ya'll (Marceline, Ann & QFan) are all better than that... three posts in a row that qualify as a DODGE of the question asked/topic raised! I didn't ask about FOX News... the Republican convention was LAST week. I wanted to talk about DEMOCRATS, since their convention is front and center THIS week!

However, though I didn't fully agree with Wales... I sure appreciate the response, offering up some things for me to think about. I'm craving dialogue and discussion...