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

LizKat

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2004
5,345
29,978
Catskill Mountains
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.
To me Libertarians are a little more libertarian than "independent", full stop. Their emphasis seems to me more on one's own rights and maybe a little less on how they stop where someone else's start. Definitely not wanting to convert this thread into a
guns or drugs thread
I'll leave it there but there are a few issues on which my views diverge somewhat from those of the (relatively few) Libertarians I know personally.

"Independent voter" to me means as a New York state registered voter, someone not enrolled as member of a party recognized by the state's election boards, so unable to participate in any party's' primary elections and can only vote in the general elections.

But "independent voter" to me also means independent of allegiance to a particular party's platforms, regardless of whether enrolled in a party.

One can be registered in a party and still weigh platforms and policy proposals of one party over another though, and in fact in the past I have remained a registered Democrat while occasionally casting votes for Republicans or Conservatives in certain slots. Not, however since the Republicans and Democrats became so polarized on assorted issues and started playing games working around federal laws by tweaking state ones. .

Being an independent voter (regardless of party reggie) in a general election says "show me why I should vote for you, whether you are a candidate from one of the two major parties or from some other party. "

I used to think that was simple enough. Now with that game playing of both parties trying to undo federal laws (or agency rules) at local levels, it's not so simple. It drives me to the left, actually and it may well drive independent former Republicans to the right.
 

JayMysterio

macrumors 6502a
Apr 24, 2010
667
12,125
Rock Ridge, California
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]”
Really?! o_O Really?!

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.
That is LITERALLY the opposite of what I said. How does one go that far afield?

JayMysterio said:
I thought I did, as you pointed out, to you it seems centrist.

I envision an independent as someone who truly has issues with other two major options, and is critical of both equally.
I thought I was very clear, in my mind if you are going to stake out the position of being an independent you are critical of both sides. Does it mean one 'hates' both sides? No. Obviously there are things to like on both sides, just the same as if one does lean towards one side over another. But if you are leaning heavily more towards one, perhaps you are on that side of the political fence.
As far as your examples now, that isn't what you started with. You weren't balanced at all in your critiques. It was leaning towards the right in all things, with a quick call out to "leftists". Which is why I pointed out it was curious there wasn't anything for :confused: "righties", "wing nuts", whatever. Now you're riding the fence seeing something in good in both, and fault in both. With no name calling.

As far as the last part, I don't know where you got that assumption about not talking fault. As I was saying to @jkcerda, I am very much aware of the part we take in who is elected.

JayMysterio said:
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.
So I have no idea of what ideas you've gathered from me, because they are entirely separate from what I actually wrote.

Bottomline though, as others chimed in... I doubt if many who claim they are, are actually independent.

After my time on this forum I've seen the wave of those people who enjoy 45, support what he is doing. But didn't actually vote for him. They are so upset when 45 supporters are supposedly called stupid, they have to start threads. But they aren't supporters themselves. When people point out the literally evil & stupid stuff that is being done, and can't be defended, THEN it's a shrug & all politicians are bad. In some cases that's what people are doing when claiming to be independent. They want the shield of not being on the side being criticized, all the while criticizing the side they don't care for. It's a cop out.

It's no shield at all to have little to no issues on one side, but a laundry list of issues with the other side. All that 'shield' does is reveal that the one complaining is just as much the feckless opportunist, as the politicians being complained about. Being committed to one's chosen party isn't a bad thing if one can see the shortcomings every side has. Which some pointed out here. I dare you to find someone on the left here in PRSI that is a Nancy Pelosi cheerleader. Hasn't said that the dems haven't tried reaching more people outside of big cities. That D's aren't as much in it for the money as republicans.

Claiming it "disturbs" you that the left feels it is above self criticism or self reflection, is NOT my idea of being an independent, if don't have similar issues with the right. Opining that criticizing the left & both sides gets one called the right, isn't being independent. It's trying to have it all ways, kvetch about the left, tout whatever it is you like on the right, but not get called out for things done by either side.

That is what I've been saying.

If you want to lament that others should leave their glass houses, make sure you aren't calling them from your own.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PrincePoppycock

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,250
quae tangit perit Trump
From my point-of-view, one house is a rambling, toxic waste dump that's currently on fire, so if my attention seems constantly focused on that, it's not because my own house of moldering stupidity isn't a problem.

Rather, it's that the other house has the potential to create a fascist kleptocracy and seems intent on going "Handmaids Tale" on bad days—and I'm not sure I want to die in the bowels of the Boston Globe's press facility.

I'm standing in the yard yelling for the fire department, and apparently that means I'm a snowflake ******* and an enemy of the people.

It's hard to be centrist when one side is yelling "fake news" in my face, and threatening to rape and murder my colleagues.
 
Last edited:

Chew Toy McCoy

macrumors regular
Original poster
May 13, 2016
202
2,847
Really?! o_O Really?!



That is LITERALLY the opposite of what I said. How does one go that far afield?





As far as your examples now, that isn't what you started with. You weren't balanced at all in your critiques. It was leaning towards the right in all things, with a quick call out to "leftists". Which is why I pointed out it was curious there wasn't anything for :confused: "righties", "wing nuts", whatever. Now you're riding the fence seeing something in good in both, and fault in both. With no name calling.

As far as the last part, I don't know where you got that assumption about not talking fault. As I was saying to @jkcerda, I am very much aware of the part we take in who is elected.



So I have no idea of what ideas you've gathered from me, because they are entirely separate from what I actually wrote.

Bottomline though, as others chimed in... I doubt if many who claim they are, are actually independent.

After my time on this forum I've seen the wave of those people who enjoy 45, support what he is doing. But didn't actually vote for him. They are so upset when 45 supporters are supposedly called stupid, they have to start threads. But they aren't supporters themselves. When people point out the literally evil & stupid stuff that is being done, and can't be defended, THEN it's a shrug & all politicians are bad. In some cases that's what people are doing when claiming to be independent. They want the shield of not being on the side being criticized, all the while criticizing the side they don't care for. It's a cop out.

It's no shield at all to have little to no issues on one side, but a laundry list of issues with the other side. All that 'shield' does is reveal that the one complaining is just as much the feckless opportunist, as the politicians being complained about. Being committed to one's chosen party isn't a bad thing if one can see the shortcomings every side has. Which some pointed out here. I dare you to find someone on the left here in PRSI that is a Nancy Pelosi cheerleader. Hasn't said that the dems haven't tried reaching more people outside of big cities. That D's aren't as much in it for the money as republicans.

Claiming it "disturbs" you that the left feels it is above self criticism or self reflection, is NOT my idea of being an independent, if don't have similar issues with the right. Opining that criticizing the left & both sides gets one called the right, isn't being independent. It's trying to have it all ways, kvetch about the left, tout whatever it is you like on the right, but not get called out for things done by either side.

That is what I've been saying.

If you want to lament that others should leave their glass houses, make sure you aren't calling them from your own.


Sorry if read deeper into your response regarding criticizing the Republicans and Democrats equally. I read it as you should criticize both and by extension not agree with them either.

I criticize the left more, not because I am on the right or a Republican, but because I lean left. Republicans doing Republican things isn’t exactly shocking. Democrats doing Republican things should be criticized and the alarm should be sounded, not every time, but they do it so often it sounds like a constant. Just a few examples of what I’m talking about – expanding wars, protecting and being in bed with Wall St. and the banks, only loudly championing social issues that don’t impact their rich donors, ie: identity politics, being a meritocracy where at a minimum you should have at least a 4 year degree if you want a voice at the table, and when anybody in their base or elected representatives suggests expansion of social programs they treat them with disdain.

So for completely illogical reason some people think if I’m unhappy with the Democratic party the obvious solution is to join the Republican party. What are you talking about. I’m mad at the Democratic party because they are the Republican party. A party to counter the Republicans doesn’t exist.
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,250
quae tangit perit Trump
Sorry if read deeper into your response regarding criticizing the Republicans and Democrats equally. I read it as you should criticize both and by extension not agree with them either.

I criticize the left more, not because I am on the right or a Republican, but because I lean left. Republicans doing Republican things isn’t exactly shocking. Democrats doing Republican things should be criticized and the alarm should be sounded, not every time, but they do it so often it sounds like a constant. Just a few examples of what I’m talking about – expanding wars, protecting and being in bed with Wall St. and the banks, only loudly championing social issues that don’t impact their rich donors, ie: identity politics, being a meritocracy where at a minimum you should have at least a 4 year degree if you want a voice at the table, and when anybody in their base or elected representatives suggests expansion of social programs they treat them with disdain.

So for completely illogical reason some people think if I’m unhappy with the Democratic party the obvious solution is to join the Republican party. What are you talking about. I’m mad at the Democratic party because they are the Republican party. A party to counter the Republicans doesn’t exist.
This is a pretty good answer, and I think where a lot of progressives find themselves. And, the problem with our dipole thinking is that we tend to see everyone as "with us, or against us."

I'd love to have deep arguments about, for example, how bonds should work in the immigration system, but a rarified debate is often impossible because we have to bat away the weirdos who think that migrants should be shot on sight, or that the 14th Amendment should be repealed.
 

JayMysterio

macrumors 6502a
Apr 24, 2010
667
12,125
Rock Ridge, California
Sorry if read deeper into your response regarding criticizing the Republicans and Democrats equally. I read it as you should criticize both and by extension not agree with them either.

I criticize the left more, not because I am on the right or a Republican, but because I lean left. Republicans doing Republican things isn’t exactly shocking. Democrats doing Republican things should be criticized and the alarm should be sounded, not every time, but they do it so often it sounds like a constant. Just a few examples of what I’m talking about – expanding wars, protecting and being in bed with Wall St. and the banks, only loudly championing social issues that don’t impact their rich donors, ie: identity politics, being a meritocracy where at a minimum you should have at least a 4 year degree if you want a voice at the table, and when anybody in their base or elected representatives suggests expansion of social programs they treat them with disdain.

So for completely illogical reason some people think if I’m unhappy with the Democratic party the obvious solution is to join the Republican party. What are you talking about. I’m mad at the Democratic party because they are the Republican party. A party to counter the Republicans doesn’t exist.
I make no claims of having any kind of depth. I'm just writing things as I see them, with a few inside jokes & references.

As I've said, in my view an independent would have issues with both sides equally. Not as if that is some attainable formula, but because it demonstrates a desire to not beholden to either party. We have a 2 party system, so there has to be aspects of either one that appeals. Things break down though if you are favoring one side & bashing the other, than you are independent in name only. I'm not even saying you aren't an independent if you favor 90% of one side, and like 10% of the other. Just be honest about it, and save the bashing for those towing the party line.

If I could imagine myself as the perfect independent, I'd have nothing bad to say about either side. Because I don't want to feed into the endless political sniping. Except shut the * up and get to work already. I want some of this & some of that, until either of you get your acts together you're all shills. My complaints would be reserved solely for false independents, who like to kvetch, and not be called out.

But I don't claim to be an independent, so...

I've used the James Baldwin quote so much lately because of the whole racism thing against the squad, and it applies tangentially here for you... ( Please for my sanity's sake do not say or think I am saying you are anyone else is racist. I am just mentioning what context & thread I have used this quote in the past for )



Criticizing something does not mean you hate it. If you are invested in it, you will criticize it more. The catch is, it should be constructive criticism. Otherwise someone comes across as yet another of the endless dog piling on to whine. That rarely helps solve anything.

If you've paid attention ( and I don't know how you could miss it ) to what happens to progressives whether it's the AOC's or a Bernie, or even a Warren. You're a communist and/or socialist to the right, and you're mucking up things to the likes of Nancy & the DoC. It doesn't mean you abandon the left. It doesn't mean you are less critical of the left. It just means you are one of the many INDIVIDUALS of the left, who don't see eye to eye with those in charge. Here's a shocker, there are such INDIVIDUALS on the right as well, who aren't gleefully towing the line.

It doesn't always have to be about countering the other party. That's the trap a 2 party system creates.

It can be about fixing YOUR party, so it's the party the fulfills the need of as many as possible. You can't satisfy everyone. We are also all humans, with the majority of us being selfish :mad:s. So you kind of want to hope you are making the best party for the country. The issue being of course, we all have different ideas of what's best, based on our own life experiences. It's messy but hey, that's politics. And American politics, ...they just keep getting messier & messier.

That maybe why we need a 3 or more party system. Change is scary though, great investments have been made into the way things are, which probably means we have to make the best of what we got.... for now.
 

Zenithal

macrumors G3
Sep 10, 2009
9,034
10,116
I forget the term. Some people have a hook belief. While they may disagree with a lot of a parties policies. There is one or two issues which are all important to them. So, they latch onto the party which represents those issues.
NIMBY? Not In My Back Yard?
 

jonblatho

macrumors 65816
Jan 20, 2014
1,332
3,330
Missouri
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.
Yep, independents pretty much don't exist at this point. The word "independent" lets people pretend they're not predisposed to a particular set of views.
[doublepost=1564190089][/doublepost]
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.
See above. They’re patting themself on the back because they don’t understand that supporting a particular party doesn’t mean that you must support everyone and everything that is associated with that party. Only fools and emotional teenagers, from my experience, believe that the opponents must defend every whatabout you throw at them.
 
Last edited: