Why don't you move out of your overcrowded glass house?

OdT22

macrumors regular
Oct 28, 2012
246
325
Always liked ol’ Carlin. Before he got too old, and snide. He saw more than most. Perhaps the first political atheist of our time. Diogenes before him.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
39,010
Criminal Mexi Midget
I took the whole thing to be about those who vote for such "clowns", and those calling themselves independent. Even if I disagreed whether they are really independent.

I thought "the clowns" themselves weren't really relevant. It's about those of us put those "clowns" in office, from either side of the aisle.

Like how I see some people wanting to call themselves "independent" so they can complain about both sides of the U.S. political coin, but not have to face the criticism that goes along with being on either side. Just saying every politician is 'bad' or "clowns" isn't very helpful. It's just being nihilistic, because it seems cool. You learn in art classes early on, there's a big difference between criticism & constructive criticism. You always want to provide constructive criticism, otherwise in critiques, you're just wasting people's time to hear yourself talk.

You often seem to always want to go on about how all politicians are ( usually with a greater focus on anyone named Clinton or Obama ) bad, which after the umpteenth time sounds a lot like static on a radio. We've heard it before, the sound never changes, doesn't mean you need to hear it over & over again. Nor that's it become anymore helpful or insightful after the 1000X time.
We are all the problem. We want to be pragmatic and hope for the best by voting fir the “lesser” evil overlooking that’s how we got into this mess in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OdT22

JayMysterio

macrumors 6502a
Apr 24, 2010
667
12,063
Rock Ridge, California
We are all the problem. We want to be pragmatic and hope for the best by voting fir the “lesser” evil overlooking that’s how we got into this mess in the first place.
But that in a sense as long as we have a 2 party system ( or any number honestly ) is something we have to contend with. If you have 2 choices for a country full of individuals, that can't address EVERY specific need, it has to be who's more likely to address most of your needs. If that isn't possible, who's the least likely to f stuff up the least.

I believe for some, they let personal bias/hatred of one, dictate their vote for the other. If anyone can seriously claim they imagine half of the stupidity we've dealt with in the last few years would have happened with the other candidate. My response is...

Yes, our political cronyism would be the same, but I'm thinking we'd have tad bit less unnecessary stupidity like "Send her back".

If you want to rant about how we would have gone to war with the other candidate, remember that's your fantasy with nothing to support it. We have war hawks in office now, working just hard if not harder. They are there because of THIS administration, a risk we should not have had to take.

But hey, I lost. In my view ( and I think current events have borne it out ), the greater evil won. This happens. It's how our system works. I was all happy the previous 8 years, now I'm not so happy. It's cyclical. I understand that. It's our system. Until it changes, claiming I'm an independent, voting for Gwyneth Paltrow, or stating the obvious that politicians are in it for themselves, doesn't do a G d thing. You just survive, maybe get more involved, maybe even do something about it, and until things change, vote for "the lesser evil".
 

OdT22

macrumors regular
Oct 28, 2012
246
325
But that in a sense as long as we have a 2 party system ( or any number honestly ) is something we have to contend with. If you have 2 choices for a country full of individuals, that can't address EVERY specific need, it has to be who's more likely to address most of your needs. If that isn't possible, who's the least likely to f stuff up the least.

I believe for some, they let personal bias/hatred of one, dictate their vote for the other. If anyone can seriously claim they imagine half of the stupidity we've dealt with in the last few years would have happened with the other candidate. My response is...

Yes, our political cronyism would be the same, but I'm thinking we'd have tad bit less unnecessary stupidity like "Send her back".

If you want to rant about how we would have gone to war with the other candidate, remember that's your fantasy with nothing to support it. We have war hawks in office now, working just hard if not harder. They are there because of THIS administration, a risk we should not have had to take.

But hey, I lost. In my view ( and I think current events have borne it out ), the greater evil won. This happens. It's how our system works. I was all happy the previous 8 years, now I'm not so happy. It's cyclical. I understand that. It's our system. Until it changes, claiming I'm an independent, voting for Gwyneth Paltrow, or stating the obvious that politicians are in it for themselves, doesn't do a G d thing. You just survive, maybe get more involved, maybe even do something about it, and until things change, vote for "the lesser evil".
I’d have to read that a few times to figure it out. But let’s take a few steps back.

Are you an activist? I doubt it

Are you productive in society? If ‘yes’, you likely answered ‘no’ above.

There’s the answer. Current events? You mean the ones on the tv or the ones you pay for out of your paycheck?

It’s your life, not theirs. Stop selling
 

LizKat

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2004
5,337
29,929
Catskill Mountains
We are all the problem. We want to be pragmatic and hope for the best by voting fir the “lesser” evil overlooking that’s how we got into this mess in the first place.
The bottom line for me is that anarchy is only appealing as an imagined rebellion against status quo, and the next most significant thing for me is that we still have two major parties and they are not tossups with respect to how they view human beings vs right to keep accumulating wealth (not just policy planks but actual legislation with observable effects).

So it's great to talk about some future indie parties putting the old guard parties out to pasture and offering can-do not-beholden platforms and swearing off K street dollars... I am all for it. In the meantime though whoever those not quite formed-up parties are, they are not putting up viable candidates.

Campaign finance under Citizens United is an abomination but as long as its effects persist we'll have two major parties' candidates on the general election ballots. And as I said before, I can't stomach the Rs' platforms and demonstrated focus, achievements, destructiveness. So I'm voting for Dems (or reasonable Greens if I think I can afford to do that as I often can in a blue state).

It's important to press for open primaries all around the USA where they're still closed. And same-day registration to vote in primaries or general elections. None of this crap like they have in New York now where to vote in a following season's primaries, you must have registered in party of your choice by the time of the previous general election. That's insane, we're a country of people who sometimes buy a car or a vacation trip package after thinking about it for four days and certainly not a couple years.

We see how little effect votes seem to have on governance, and how much value are we going to put on our vote? The odds of skipping primary elections are high, but we still reserve the right to bitch and moan about the winners. Our logic isn't the best... :rolleyes:

Anyway with open primaries then the indie voter rolls (which are large now) will likely become embarrassingly huge compared to the 2 traditional parties. Then maybe people will stop with the myth that a third party can't mount a successful campaign. One will do it sometime. It would be better if there were a few of them though. It will help us get past the idea that "socialism" is the bane of our electoral prospects.

What's really killing us is a combination of gerrymandered incumbency, campaign finance that disadvantages small donors and new candidates, plus these arcane rules about primary voting in particular and unnecessarily restrictive registration policies in general. They all shove in the direction of voter apathy.
 

OdT22

macrumors regular
Oct 28, 2012
246
325
The bottom line for me is that anarchy is only appealing as an imagined rebellion against status quo, and the next most significant thing for me is that we still have two major parties and they are not tossups with respect to how they view human beings vs right to keep accumulating wealth (not just policy planks but actual legislation with observable effects).

So it's great to talk about some future indie parties putting the old guard parties out to pasture and offering can-do not-beholden platforms and swearing off K street dollars... I am all for it. In the meantime though whoever those not quite formed-up parties are, they are not putting up viable candidates.

Campaign finance under Citizens United is an abomination but as long as its effects persist we'll have two major parties' candidates on the general election ballots. And as I said before, I can't stomach the Rs' platforms and demonstrated focus, achievements, destructiveness. So I'm voting for Dems (or reasonable Greens if I think I can afford to do that as I often can in a blue state).

It's important to press for open primaries all around the USA where they're still closed. And same-day registration to vote in primaries or general elections. None of this crap like they have in New York now where to vote in a following season's primaries, you must have registered in party of your choice by the time of the previous general election. That's insane, we're a country of people who sometimes buy a car or a vacation trip package after thinking about it for four days and certainly not a couple years.

We see how little effect votes seem to have on governance, and how much value are we going to put on our vote? The odds of skipping primary elections are high, but we still reserve the right to bitch and moan about the winners. Our logic isn't the best... :rolleyes:

Anyway with open primaries then the indie voter rolls (which are large now) will likely become embarrassingly huge compared to the 2 traditional parties. Then maybe people will stop with the myth that a third party can't mount a successful campaign. One will do it sometime. It would be better if there were a few of them though. It will help us get past the idea that "socialism" is the bane of our electoral prospects.

What's really killing us is a combination of gerrymandered incumbency, campaign finance that disadvantages small donors and new candidates, plus these arcane rules about primary voting in particular and unnecessarily restrictive registration policies in general. They all shove in the direction of voter apathy.
I don’t know. I read ‘The Creature From Jekyll Island’ about ten years ago, and it suggests we might be a bit more cynical today. That was on page 9k or so.. my eyes admittedly glazed over a few times. But this idea of trusting government or the powers at be isn’t all that natural. I know that. Liked your last paragraph
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkcerda

JayMysterio

macrumors 6502a
Apr 24, 2010
667
12,063
Rock Ridge, California
I’d have to read that a few times to figure it out. But let’s take a few steps back.

Are you an activist? I doubt it

Are you productive in society? If ‘yes’, you likely answered ‘no’ above.

There’s the answer. Current events? You mean the ones on the tv or the ones you pay for out of your paycheck?

It’s your life, not theirs. Stop selling
I am sorry, I have to confess I don’t know what you’re on about here.

I am not selling anything.

In fact it would be the opposite.

I thought I conveyed i am not buying the claims of some ( including the OP ) of truly being independent.
 

RichardMZhlubb

Contributor
Nov 26, 2010
209
14,886
Washington, DC
One of the many nice things about being politically independent is you don't live in a glass house with hundreds of millions of other people the opposing side thinks you need to take personal responsibility for. I see some rational independent thinkers on here who still insist on hitching their wagon to the corpse of the Democratic or Republican party and I'm not sure why.

I can see Trump opening diplomatic relationships with North Korea as a great thing in avoiding war. I can also see his blanket dislike of Muslims and Hispanics as keeping him from doing the same with Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba. I still respect his resistance to the war hawks he's surrounded himself with.

I can accept violence as part of "all options are on the table" when the government fails it's people. But I can also say antifa is an anarchist organization adopting leftist propaganda claiming to fight fascists while using fascists tactics. They're a bunch of political larpers who need to get laid, to use clinical terms.

That's how it works. You just call things as you see them on an individual basis. No party line to tow or defend. No renegades you have to claim as a dependent.
My problem with this approach regarding Trump is that even policies you may agree with are still being implemented by someone completely incompetent and corrupt. Even if he were “on my team” and was elected as a progressive Democrat, I would still be just as opposed to his presence in the White House. I don’t object to Trump because he’s a Republican. I object to him because he’s completely lacking in the character, intelligence and temperament necessary to be a competent president.
 

Plutonius

macrumors 604
Feb 22, 2003
7,847
5,966
New Hampshire, USA
One of the many nice things about being politically independent is you don't live in a glass house with hundreds of millions of other people the opposing side thinks you need to take personal responsibility for.
I'm of the opinion that nobody is truly independent.

All the independent voter I know, end up voting for one party or another. It just makes them feel better saying that they don't belong to a party.

The same would go for politicians. Bernie Sanders claimed he was an independent (until he wanted to run for president) but who here would have considered him anything else other than a Democrat.

I find that people who claim to be Libertarian are much more independent then people claiming to be Independents.

From your opening statement I got the impression more that you liked the idea of being referred to as an independent, while still espousing the rhetoric of one side. It's a wonderful position to take as you can criticize both sides, while avoiding the same criticisms of whatever party you are actually leaning towards.
I find this to be a good description in general of people claiming to be Independents.
 
Last edited:

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,060
16,569
The Misty Mountains
That is a very valid point which is why we need more people breaking from the duopoly system we have now. On some level I see it on par with the equal rights movement. I'd like to see a situation where there is an extremely low voter turnout for a federal election and independents band together and file a federal lawsuit with the supreme court for giving us 2 **** candidates and colluding to suppress both no establishment candidates within their party and a third (or more) party option.
I think I get where you are coming from, but not sure a lawsuit to SCOTUS about this would go anywhere., but maybe depending what the lawsuit is about. First of all there are quite a few Parties scattered among the States. The issue is they are not on the ballot but in a few States.
https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States

Secondly, this is, a States Right’s issue, States decide ballot requirements for their state, but it seems to me if the goal is to break out of 2 main parties, that Federal standardization would benefit the situation, if you could get the States to agree and as long as Federal rules encourage new political parties, not hold them back.

Why are there only two parties in American politics?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/27/why-are-there-only-two-parties-in-american-politics/?utm_term=.fd86638a9f8b

There are occasionally governors or senators from a third party, but often these parties have limited influence overall and have a difficult time becoming a national movement. Part of this problem comes from the party’s difficulty in winning in the first place; another part of the problem is that the two main parties can make it challenging for third-party candidates to qualify for the ballot in a given election. (The United States, for example, allows each state to determine how a presidential candidate gets on the ballot. That means that third-party candidates generally have to be wealthy people who can fund their own campaigns and satisfy expensive requirements to get on the ballot in all 50 states.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JayMysterio

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,060
16,569
The Misty Mountains
I'm of the opinion that nobody is truly independent.

All the independent voter I know, end up voting for one party or another. It just makes them feel better saying that they don't belong to a party.

The same would go for politicians. Bernie Sanders claimed he was an independent (until he wanted to run for president) but who here would have considered him anything else other than a Democrat.

I find that people who claim to be Libertarian are much more independent then people claiming to be Independents.



I find this to be a good description in general of people claiming to be Independents.
I agree with this, even if political parties were officially banned, you would see groups of like minded people banding together, organizing.

As a young adult I really did not see the important differences between Democrats and Republicans and became a Republican. I can’t even remember the thought process that went into it. But then Nixon came along and Watergate and I was so disturbed by this, that I switched to Independent, because I could not be sure Dens were any better, even although it meant I would miss out on voting in primaries.

Now, despite this, I continued to vote primarily Republican, until Bill Clinton and Slimey Newt came along. The GOP was steadily moving Right, becoming the party of spin, which morphed into outright lies, character assassination for the win, and I working in labor, saw the lay of the land from that perspective, greedy corporate owners who employees had to force into sharing the wealth the corporation generates, or they’d have you living like a pauper and have very good reasons from their perspective why that was fair. This is why labor unions are essential, but that is a different topic. ;)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JayMysterio

OdT22

macrumors regular
Oct 28, 2012
246
325
I am sorry, I have to confess I don’t know what you’re on about here.

I am not selling anything.

In fact it would be the opposite.

I thought I conveyed i am not buying the claims of some ( including the OP ) of truly being independent.
You may remember the Greeks protesting about a decade ago. They had bank closures and the violence was televised. My point is that the real population of Greece wasn’t what we saw on our televisions. The core population was busy making a living and not protesting as the tv reported. Much like here in the US during the ‘occupy wall st’ nonsense.

As much as we all might like or identify with a cause, it often does not pay the bills. Cows still need milking, trucks need driving, food needs to be prepared. Activism doesn’t pay for these, yet the media can exploit each of us at every opportunity they get. And they will.
 

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,060
16,569
The Misty Mountains
I’d have to read that a few times to figure it out. But let’s take a few steps back.

Are you an activist? I doubt it

Are you productive in society? If ‘yes’, you likely answered ‘no’ above.

There’s the answer. Current events? You mean the ones on the tv or the ones you pay for out of your paycheck?

It’s your life, not theirs. Stop selling
What do you think he is selling? I can tell you disagree, but you’re too vague in this reply.
[doublepost=1564146716][/doublepost]
We are all the problem. We want to be pragmatic and hope for the best by voting fir the “lesser” evil overlooking that’s how we got into this mess in the first place.
This strikes me as just a sound bite with little meaning, You need to be clearer, more specific, and better describe what you mean and do you have an alternative to voting for the lesser evil? Usually people who make an observation like this, have something better in mind.
[doublepost=1564147039][/doublepost]
I've already said I'd be an indie if not for the fact NYS has closed primaries. I'd rather try to influence the Dem party's nominee selections than those of any other registered party in the state at the present time (although I occasionally vote Green or Working Party for some slots in general elections). I was elated at the federal elections in 2008, and from 2010-2016 cognizant of the difficulties for Obama in some headwinds from the Republicans, and regretful that concessions at center-right have became sucn an ongoing thing for the Dems.

In 2016 I was disappointed at how the Dems ran things inside the party, so I'm still pretty much on track to vote in the 2016 Dem primaries and then register independent after that. It's time for younger folk to try to get the Dems to move more towards more of the people, and leave the banks and insurance companies to the hand that a bigger middle ground party will deal them out one of these days.

Me, I'll see what the indie reform parties have to say as time goes on and probably still end up voting Dem in general elections for the rest of my life -- unless a third party gets some traction that's less a down-middle than progressive reform party.

I meant it when I've said that I'm not voting for a Republican candidate of the stripe of this GOP again in my lifetime. I follow the evolution of the Stand Up Republic and neverTrumper conservatives out of interest, although more just to see how they diverge from this current GOP than out of conviction I could end up supporting their eventual policy assertions.

Bottom line for now I still do see a big difference in the two major parties' outlooks and legislative efforts, and there's not enough time in my "late afternoon" for this iteration of the GOP to get off their current dime and recapture my interest. I await with interest the focus of the growing "indie center" if they decide to stop being this-or-that at the polls and decide to become a "new other". I'm probably getting too old to get out there and try to help shape it. My stash of books invested in and yet to be read reminds me to divide my time more selfishly now. :)
I am of a like mind. Today’s GOP, as it exists is poison to the ideals the US was founded upon.
 
Last edited:

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,060
16,569
The Misty Mountains
My problem with this approach regarding Trump is that even policies you may agree with are still being implemented by someone completely incompetent and corrupt. Even if he were “on my team” and was elected as a progressive Democrat, I would still be just as opposed to his presence in the White House. I don’t object to Trump because he’s a Republican. I object to him because he’s completely lacking in the character, intelligence and temperament necessary to be a competent president.
I am convinced that if the system would allow him, he could easily morph into a Hitleresk, Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, or any number of third rate dictators, he has an unhealthy ego in combination with being a sociopath, does not have an honest bone in his body, has not one respectable quality, and is absent of any moral standard other than what he perceives to benefit him, that’s it, and it’s way too much, to have even considered him for the position of POTUS, yet, there he is, the wild man rampaging about the White House, because some of us thought he was the better choice. :oops::oops::(:mad:
 
  • Like
Reactions: JayMysterio

JayMysterio

macrumors 6502a
Apr 24, 2010
667
12,063
Rock Ridge, California
You may remember the Greeks protesting about a decade ago. They had bank closures and the violence was televised. My point is that the real population of Greece wasn’t what we saw on our televisions. The core population was busy making a living and not protesting as the tv reported. Much like here in the US during the ‘occupy wall st’ nonsense.

As much as we all might like or identify with a cause, it often does not pay the bills. Cows still need milking, trucks need driving, food needs to be prepared. Activism doesn’t pay for these, yet the media can exploit each of us at every opportunity they get. And they will.
Which has absolutely zip to do with that I was talking about. Thank you for sharing though.

What I tried to say that despite whether or not bills are paid or cows milked, it's easier to declare one is an independent than actually be an independent. I wasn't necessarily making a call for activism. I was saying that if you are going to whine about the state of politics today, do nothing yourself about it, your point is dulled. You're actually just criticizing & whining then, not actually adding anything constructive to the discussion, and then having the nerve to call out others.

Or to put it another way, you are standing in the corner of a glasshouse telling others, they should break out like you have because you're mistaking your reflection as you being on the outside looking in.
 

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,060
16,569
The Misty Mountains
You may remember the Greeks protesting about a decade ago. They had bank closures and the violence was televised. My point is that the real population of Greece wasn’t what we saw on our televisions. The core population was busy making a living and not protesting as the tv reported. Much like here in the US during the ‘occupy wall st’ nonsense.

As much as we all might like or identify with a cause, it often does not pay the bills. Cows still need milking, trucks need driving, food needs to be prepared. Activism doesn’t pay for these, yet the media can exploit each of us at every opportunity they get. And they will.
Is there a point in these observations that relates to what is being discussed? You are against activism, you don’t like media? What are you for? How does that help us break out of a 2 party system? Do we need to?
 

OdT22

macrumors regular
Oct 28, 2012
246
325
Which has absolutely zip to do with that I was talking about. Thank you for sharing though.

What I tried to say that despite whether or not bills are paid or cows milked, it's easier to declare one is an independent than actually be an independent. I wasn't necessarily making a call for activism. I was saying that if you are going to whine about the state of politics today, do nothing yourself about it, your point is dulled. You're actually just criticizing & whining then, not actually adding anything constructive to the discussion, and then having the nerve to call out others.

Or to put it another way, you are standing in the corner of a glasshouse telling others, they should break out like you have because you're mistaking your reflection as you being on the outside looking in.
Ok. That’s nice.

Not sure who’s shunning who at this point, but my own thought on the matter is that anyone who is busy finger pointing, as is 99% of all politics, is as futile as watching your lawn so you tell someone to get off of it. Everyone enjoys being a critic and describing their theoretic solutions no matter how small the audience. Equating to piss in the wind.

I’ve voted, served in the military, and paid all my taxes. I know it’s not all about me. But I also notice politics is a lunacy, driving otherwise intelligent people insane. All while participating is 100% optional.
 

JayMysterio

macrumors 6502a
Apr 24, 2010
667
12,063
Rock Ridge, California
Ok. That’s nice.

Not sure who’s shunning who at this point, but my own thought on the matter is that anyone who is busy finger pointing, as is 99% of all politics, is as futile as watching your lawn so you tell someone to get off of it. Everyone enjoys being a critic and describing their theoretic solutions no matter how small the audience. Equating to piss in the wind.

I’ve voted, served in the military, and paid all my taxes. I know it’s not all about me. But I also notice politics is a lunacy, driving otherwise intelligent people insane. All while participating is 100% optional.
Okay. That is nice.

But what...?

Your bonafides aside & appreciated, that has what to do with calling oneself an independent?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huntn

OdT22

macrumors regular
Oct 28, 2012
246
325
Okay. That is nice.

But what...?

Your bonafides aside & appreciated, that has what to do with calling oneself an independent?
Maybe I misread the OP. Just pointing out that politics are largely decisive and self serving, while a majority will cling to the false promises and fake intentions found in all party vanity.

Not sure why I wandered in to a political thread. My bad for sure.
 

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,060
16,569
The Misty Mountains
Ok. That’s nice.

Not sure who’s shunning who at this point, but my own thought on the matter is that anyone who is busy finger pointing, as is 99% of all politics, is as futile as watching your lawn so you tell someone to get off of it. Everyone enjoys being a critic and describing their theoretic solutions no matter how small the audience. Equating to piss in the wind.

I’ve voted, served in the military, and paid all my taxes. I know it’s not all about me. But I also notice politics is a lunacy, driving otherwise intelligent people insane. All while participating is 100% optional.
Yes, and? I’ve read the series of your posts in this thread and have to ask, do you have a specific relevant point, you’d like to communicate? Maybe summarize with some bullet points. :)
 

Chew Toy McCoy

macrumors regular
Original poster
May 13, 2016
202
2,835
I don’t know if I will be able to keep up with the traction of this thread and respond to individual posts. I’ll put more effort in this weekend but I just wanted to say a few things for now.

It appears JayMysterio’s definition of an independent is somebody who despises both parties across the board and doesn’t agree with them on anything. To me that’s an anarchist. The Democrats and Republicans are too big and full of ideas to disagree with them both on everything.

To me an independent is somebody who has beliefs that could be seen as loosely Democrat, Republican, or neither after the fact. For example I feel people should have access to more “free stuff” in the form of government assistance programs for healthcare and education (Democrat) but with strict accountability to continue to receive it (Republican) at the expense of the military budget (neither). There’s no clear winner there.

For those who feel they don’t have to be responsible for the idiots in their party, that’s not a decision for you to make. That’s the decision the opposing party makes for you. You can say you’re not a white supremacist or AOC communist all you want. Doesn’t matter. The majority of the opposing side is going to paint you as guilty by association because you’re a member of “the party of [insert what your claiming not to be here]”
 
  • Like
Reactions: LizKat