How could anyone be "independent" or a "swing voter" at this time in history?

[sparky]

The politicians are victims of this also.. When a few principled people start DECLARING as Independents and they suddenly look and sound smarter, more invigorated, and friendlier --- they WILL get elected...

the problem there is, one can only appear independent & principled until the $$$ runs out.....

~S~

 

[Rigby5]

Independent candidates can never win because they never have the deep pockets of the 2 parties.

But all voters should be swing voters because both parties are so bad and corrupt.
The republicans are losers due to income inequality, corrupt tax laws, anti-abortion and SCOTUS nominations.
The democrats are losers due to gun control, corrupt tax laws, and SCOTUS nominations.
Hardly much difference any more.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

Independent candidates can never win because they never have the deep pockets of the 2 parties.

But all voters should be swing voters because both parties are so bad and corrupt.
The republicans are losers due to income inequality, corrupt tax laws, anti-abortion and SCOTUS nominations.
The democrats are losers due to gun control, corrupt tax laws, and SCOTUS nominations.
Hardly much difference any more.

1. No it really all boils down to the Butchering of Babies.
2. You trying to murk the waters will never change that.
3. When the unborn are protected then our 2nd Amendments rights will be firmed up too.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You're transparent if you vote Independent your vote goes to the democrat party.

Error in logic there. His independent vote does NOT "go to the Democrats". His vote goes to a candidate that he likes and trusts BETTER than bad choices that the DemReps are offering... It's called voting conscience and for principles... NOT MERELY --- trying to win..

Don't care which of the inept dysfunctional parties you're a slave to... If you HELP push lousy candidates just to WIN -- theyre never gonna try to find BETTER choices to offer..

If Bernie or Tulsi gets screwed AGAIN by the DNC --- and either or both decide to run Independent, the Dems VOTING FOR THEM -- are voting for PRINCIPLE and their conscience --- NOT helping Repubs to win...

There is no reason America is BOUND to have the SAME 2 parties in opposition for so long.. It's NOT healthy.. And it makes people BELIEVE the sky is gonna fall if they leave those archaic and power hungry parties...

There is no error in my logic Name an elected Independent that doesn't vote with democrats?

There's not a big enough statistical sample to make that case. Just had one "independent" Congress person FLEE the Dem party.. But that's not evidence either...

Sad truth is ---- voters are addicted to Coke/Pepsi allegiances. Doesn't represent their views in most cases even WHEN your team is in power.. Remember the Tea Party rumblings started under G.W.

The politicians are victims of this also.. When a few principled people start DECLARING as Independents and they suddenly look and sound smarter, more invigorated, and friendlier --- they WILL get elected...

I wrote an Guest Editorial in the Nashville paper when our former (well liked by BOTH parties) former governor was trying to grab a Senate seat for the Dems.. Got tired of his ads PROMISING to be an "Independent voice" in Congress as a Dem... His name is Phil Bredesen.. He had a HUGE chance of winning if he ONLY ran as a TRUE Independent. Instead of pretending he could be Independent with Chuckie Schumers boot on his throat..

Excuse me you said there wasn't enough statistical sample to make that case????? All you have to do is look at their voting record.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There is no common ground between the parties.

Yes there is>>>>>

~S~

If George was alive today what would he say?

 

[B. Kidd]

There is no common ground between the parties. The old "two sides of the same coin" paradigm of the 1990's has long past. "The establishment NO LONGER controls either party.

It's now National-Federalist-Libertarian-constitutional-republicans vs Global-Unitary-Marxist- democrats (one world mob-rule).

We want the United States to define and secure its border, maintain the Federalist doctrine of dual sovereignty , with limits on both the federal and state governments on individual persons, in accordance with an enduring social contract (that is meant to be difficult to amend) that preserves a Republican form of government.

Democrats want a global state with no border, with one big giant command center of unelected "experts," to redistribute all resources according to mob demand. LOL

Well stated.

Put another way, our Union IS at a historic crossroads!
How anyone can sit this next election out, is beyond me.

 

[skews13]

There is no common ground between the parties. The old "two sides of the same coin" paradigm of the 1990's has long past. "The establishment NO LONGER controls either party.

It's now National-Federalist-Libertarian-constitutional-republicans vs Global-Unitary-Marxist- democrats (one world mob-rule).

We want the United States to define and secure its border, maintain the Federalist doctrine of dual sovereignty , with limits on both the federal and state governments on individual persons, in accordance with an enduring social contract (that is meant to be difficult to amend) that preserves a Republican form of government.

Democrats want a global state with no border, with one big giant command center of unelected "experts," to redistribute all resources according to mob demand. LOL

Your premise is faulty. It isn't Democrats that started multinational (globalist one world mob rule) corporations. That would be Republicans, and especially Libertarians and Conservatives.

Borders don't mean anything when the jobs are crossing them, the tax money is crossing them, and those multi national corporations are importing their Chinese, and Mexican made goods back across them again.

You might want to become a little more adept at border education.

 

[Pete7469]

The "moderates" at this point are assholes who refuse to acknowledge RIGHT Vs. WRONG and sit on a fence they created in their own mind preening themselves and acting as if they're superior because they refuse to take a stand until one side defeats the other.

Miserable pathetic pieces of shit that have nothing to fight for and are only interested in their own ends.

Then there are leftist pieces of shit like Mac1958 who pretend to be "moderate" like fakey, yet they're still just as bigoted and ignorant as any other liberal parasite.


.

Independent doesn't mean moderate, Pete. It means not a Dem or a Republican. I don't appreciate that crap outta your mouth.

I don't type with my mouth goofy....



.

 

[flacaltenn]

The politicians are victims of this also.. When a few principled people start DECLARING as Independents and they suddenly look and sound smarter, more invigorated, and friendlier --- they WILL get elected...

the problem there is, one can only appear independent & principled until the $$$ runs out.....

~S~

Money is not as big a problem as folks make it out to be.. Being a PRINCIPLED candidate that can cut loose from party talking talks and dogma will get you further...

You remember when Corker and Flake announced their retirement early because the GOP wasn't really happy with them and vice versa?? Those 2 got MORE CAMERA time than any other senators.. Because they were not just parroting the daily talking points. Same with Joe Leiberman who got THOROUGHLY screwed by the DNC for "disloyality".. They primaried him out, he ran later as an Indie and WON his seat back...

In the SHORT run, all successful indies for US Congress will be "name recognition" and reputation candidates. Not necessary for state campaigns at all... And there's plenty of those with the opportunity to leverage their "bi-partisan" support (or at least their small negatives from the opposing tribe) to WIN in a 3 way race...

Could also come from very successful folks in OTHER fields with a proven track record of solving problems.. Mark Cuban comes to mind.. He's a unique thinker.. Not really a type that would want to WORK FOR and be led by the led by nose from automatons like Schumer or McConnell..

 

[flacaltenn]

You're transparent if you vote Independent your vote goes to the democrat party.

Error in logic there. His independent vote does NOT "go to the Democrats". His vote goes to a candidate that he likes and trusts BETTER than bad choices that the DemReps are offering... It's called voting conscience and for principles... NOT MERELY --- trying to win..

Don't care which of the inept dysfunctional parties you're a slave to... If you HELP push lousy candidates just to WIN -- theyre never gonna try to find BETTER choices to offer..

If Bernie or Tulsi gets screwed AGAIN by the DNC --- and either or both decide to run Independent, the Dems VOTING FOR THEM -- are voting for PRINCIPLE and their conscience --- NOT helping Repubs to win...

There is no reason America is BOUND to have the SAME 2 parties in opposition for so long.. It's NOT healthy.. And it makes people BELIEVE the sky is gonna fall if they leave those archaic and power hungry parties...

There is no error in my logic Name an elected Independent that doesn't vote with democrats?

There's not a big enough statistical sample to make that case. Just had one "independent" Congress person FLEE the Dem party.. But that's not evidence either...

Sad truth is ---- voters are addicted to Coke/Pepsi allegiances. Doesn't represent their views in most cases even WHEN your team is in power.. Remember the Tea Party rumblings started under G.W.

The politicians are victims of this also.. When a few principled people start DECLARING as Independents and they suddenly look and sound smarter, more invigorated, and friendlier --- they WILL get elected...

I wrote an Guest Editorial in the Nashville paper when our former (well liked by BOTH parties) former governor was trying to grab a Senate seat for the Dems.. Got tired of his ads PROMISING to be an "Independent voice" in Congress as a Dem... His name is Phil Bredesen.. He had a HUGE chance of winning if he ONLY ran as a TRUE Independent. Instead of pretending he could be Independent with Chuckie Schumers boot on his throat..

Excuse me you said there wasn't enough statistical sample to make that case????? All you have to do is look at their voting record.

Still valid.. There's NOT ENOUGH "independents" YET to make any generalizations like you did.. There's no track record for even 10 or 12 of them to say "they all vote as democrats"... Even Repub leaders sound and vote like Democrats occasionally and that INCLUDES GW and Trump....

 

[sparky]

Money is not as big a problem as folks make it out to be.. Being a PRINCIPLED candidate that can cut loose from party talking talks and dogma will get you further...

mmmmmaybe....i'm sure you've checked out the many FEC vs. whoeverisupset SCOTUS challengers FCT.....and then there's Bernie who thinks $5's & $10's can fuel his ride....

We've a 3rd party history here, than basically ended almost a century ago, investigating that we find the ugly side of things political, who's $$$ clout beat them into oblivion

~S~

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You're transparent if you vote Independent your vote goes to the democrat party.

Error in logic there. His independent vote does NOT "go to the Democrats". His vote goes to a candidate that he likes and trusts BETTER than bad choices that the DemReps are offering... It's called voting conscience and for principles... NOT MERELY --- trying to win..

Don't care which of the inept dysfunctional parties you're a slave to... If you HELP push lousy candidates just to WIN -- theyre never gonna try to find BETTER choices to offer..

If Bernie or Tulsi gets screwed AGAIN by the DNC --- and either or both decide to run Independent, the Dems VOTING FOR THEM -- are voting for PRINCIPLE and their conscience --- NOT helping Repubs to win...

There is no reason America is BOUND to have the SAME 2 parties in opposition for so long.. It's NOT healthy.. And it makes people BELIEVE the sky is gonna fall if they leave those archaic and power hungry parties...

There is no error in my logic Name an elected Independent that doesn't vote with democrats?

There's not a big enough statistical sample to make that case. Just had one "independent" Congress person FLEE the Dem party.. But that's not evidence either...

Sad truth is ---- voters are addicted to Coke/Pepsi allegiances. Doesn't represent their views in most cases even WHEN your team is in power.. Remember the Tea Party rumblings started under G.W.

The politicians are victims of this also.. When a few principled people start DECLARING as Independents and they suddenly look and sound smarter, more invigorated, and friendlier --- they WILL get elected...

I wrote an Guest Editorial in the Nashville paper when our former (well liked by BOTH parties) former governor was trying to grab a Senate seat for the Dems.. Got tired of his ads PROMISING to be an "Independent voice" in Congress as a Dem... His name is Phil Bredesen.. He had a HUGE chance of winning if he ONLY ran as a TRUE Independent. Instead of pretending he could be Independent with Chuckie Schumers boot on his throat..

Excuse me you said there wasn't enough statistical sample to make that case????? All you have to do is look at their voting record.

Still valid.. There's NOT ENOUGH "independents" YET to make any generalizations like you did.. There's no track record for even 10 or 12 of them to say "they all vote as democrats"... Even Repub leaders sound and vote like Democrats occasionally and that INCLUDES GW and Trump....

regardless if you have 1 independent or 1000 the voting record is all you need to see if what I say is correct.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And in what way are you "standing up for your standards", exactly? Sanctimoniously flapping your jaw at people about how "moral" you are? Or is there something real?

You're the one who's preaching at me because you feel I must take an action. But if you think asking for kindness, respect, and honesty is me being sanctimonious than have at it.

You misunderstand. I don't care if you "take an action" or not. In fact, from listening to you talk, I think you're probably making the world a better place by sparing us your involvement.

What I'm actually "preaching" at you about is seeing a different perspective on your choices, or non-choices as the case may be.

What I continue to think is that your prattling about vagueries like "I'm just asking for kindness, respect, and honesty, and how DARE you expect me to be specific about what that actually means, just admire me for using good words!" is so much self-flattering hogwash.

kindness
[ˈkīn(d)nəs]
NOUN

1. the quality of being friendly, generous, and considerate.

respect
[rəˈspekt]
NOUN

1. a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
   "the director had a lot of respect for Douglas as an actor"
   
   
2. due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others.
   "young people's lack of respect for their parents"
   synonyms:
   due regard · 
   [more]
3. a particular aspect, point, or detail.
   "the government's record in this respect is a mixed one"

integrity
[inˈteɡrədē]
NOUN

1. the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.
   "he is known to be a man of integrity"

I'm sorry if those words trigger and confuse you.

Oh, I'm sorry, was your massive ego not able to process the concept of someone finding no more value in your conversation?

Piss off, lightweight. You and your dickless self-justification are boring.

All you've done is preach to others how they're wrong for not acting in a manner that you approve of and I'm the one with the ego? I have plenty of flaws and I'll never pretend otherwise, but one thing I'll never do is act like I'm entitled to the actions of another person. But I'm sure your ego will justify that for you.

Are you STILL trying to hump my leg? Damn, dude. It was a weekend. Get a life.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No one said you owed any candidate your support, Chuckles. You're busy arguing the point you WISH this was about, because you don't want to face the reality of the real topic.

Your support is owed to the society around you, and the individual people who make up that society, and the society which will exist in the future. You owe it to all of the above to do what you can to make the world better, or at least to prevent it from becoming worse. And if you're more interested in congratulating yourself on your "high morals" in dismissing anything and anyone imperfect as "feces" and beneath your vaunted, oh-so-valuable vote than you are in dealing with the realities of who will make things better and who will work evil, then YOU are the one not meeting basic decent human behavior.

You're of the opinion that I must vote or otherwise I'm allowing evil to take place. In order for that than you certainly do feel that I owe someone my support. What you don't realize is that a vote of no confidence is still a vote. You want me to vote for someone, than put up someone worth voting for. But try as you might, you don't get to dictate my actions. I have every right to refuse my vote to those who I feel are undeserving.

You are inferring far more respect for you than I actually have. Get over yourself.

To break this down in simple terms, I asked how anyone could claim to be undecided at this point in time, and you told me how morally superior you were for not making any choices, and I told you you were full of shit. That's it, that's all. I haven't demanded that you stop being full of shit; I'm just exercising my right to recognize that you're full of shit.

Me not voting for someone because I have standards equals me being full of shit. Okay. You have fun with that.

And you're still talking. Shoo.

Yes I am. Public forums are funny like that.

Full of trolling incels? Seems like. Run along, puppy.

 

[Red Wolf]

You're the one who's preaching at me because you feel I must take an action. But if you think asking for kindness, respect, and honesty is me being sanctimonious than have at it.

You misunderstand. I don't care if you "take an action" or not. In fact, from listening to you talk, I think you're probably making the world a better place by sparing us your involvement.

What I'm actually "preaching" at you about is seeing a different perspective on your choices, or non-choices as the case may be.

What I continue to think is that your prattling about vagueries like "I'm just asking for kindness, respect, and honesty, and how DARE you expect me to be specific about what that actually means, just admire me for using good words!" is so much self-flattering hogwash.

kindness
[ˈkīn(d)nəs]
NOUN

1. the quality of being friendly, generous, and considerate.

respect
[rəˈspekt]
NOUN

1. a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
   "the director had a lot of respect for Douglas as an actor"
   
   
2. due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others.
   "young people's lack of respect for their parents"
   synonyms:
   due regard · 
   [more]
3. a particular aspect, point, or detail.
   "the government's record in this respect is a mixed one"

integrity
[inˈteɡrədē]
NOUN

1. the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.
   "he is known to be a man of integrity"

I'm sorry if those words trigger and confuse you.

Oh, I'm sorry, was your massive ego not able to process the concept of someone finding no more value in your conversation?

Piss off, lightweight. You and your dickless self-justification are boring.

All you've done is preach to others how they're wrong for not acting in a manner that you approve of and I'm the one with the ego? I have plenty of flaws and I'll never pretend otherwise, but one thing I'll never do is act like I'm entitled to the actions of another person. But I'm sure your ego will justify that for you.

Are you STILL trying to hump my leg? Damn, dude. It was a weekend. Get a life.

I responded to your comment the next morning and that is me humping your leg? I can only imagine what that says about you having waited over the entire weekend before commenting. As for your comment below about trolling, only one of us has resorted to insults and personal attacks and that wasn't me. Something you only do when you can't argue the facts.

Now if you actually want to have a conversation about the topic than I'm quite happy to have one, but if you feel that mentioning leg humping makes you feel better about this whole thing than who am I to get between you and your leg humping?

 

[Pete7469]

The "moderates" at this point are assholes who refuse to acknowledge RIGHT Vs. WRONG and sit on a fence they created in their own mind preening themselves and acting as if they're superior because they refuse to take a stand until one side defeats the other.

No sir Mr. Pete, we're the ONLY ONES that recognize RIGHT vs WRONG.. The party animals (including you unfortunately) practice PARTISAN moral judgements depending on their PARTY interests and the hypocrisy of IGNORING right from wrong on a "situational basis" is the stuff that makes the USMB Politics great....

No one gets EVER gets punished.. It's hard to punish incompetence or even illegal acts.. Apparently you can run a 3 year coup against an opponent even AFTER he's elected and not have the fucking "party media" even whisper about it..

You expect this to GET BETTER by VANQUISHING one of these archaic and useless parties??? THere's TOO MUCH POWER AT STAKE to allow that to happen even if the victors wear WHITE hats or rainbow hats and sing gospel...

You need leaders that THINK and ACT independently on PRINCIPLE and conscience.. Take a former Repub or Demo and let them win an INDEPENDENT seat in Congress and they will immediately APPEAR smarter, more likeable and faster to fix things....

I take exception to your assertion that I'm a "party animal". I condemn the GOP often, I use terms like "republicrat" as an epithet to describe the globalist elite that attempt to promote "socialism light" over libertarian philosophy.

Granted I'm vehemently opposed to democrooks, and attack leftists like a rabid badger I also criticize Trump and other "heroes" of the right on the occasion they do something I oppose. I've been calling Trump "The World's Richest Professional Clown" for years, way before Doomberg's little tweet the other day.

My beef isn't with "Independents", it's with the pukes who "think" you can do some communism, and only steal half of the 1%'s shit while empowering a behemoth of government that regulates the length of your fingernails and still have a "free" country. I'm an "Independent", even though I vote republicrat for the most consequential offices, I also vote for libertarians in local elections. I have even voted for a couple democrooks in local elections because I've had interactions with them and they're not really the bed wetting sort. They're the political whore sort who say what bed wetters want to hear, but act like adults when they get the office.

I disagree with you on tactics also.

I am convinced that destroying the DNC and fracturing it into at least two or more parties would result in a positive gain for freedom and economic prosperity. The DNC needs to be divided into the perverted pinko freaks, the race hustlers, the environazis and the global fascists. The struggle in the DNC is there already, it needs to be a larger wound and it needs dirt stuffed into it so that the puss builds up and it explodes.

The GOP needs to be forced harder to the right, held accountable to reduce government power, spending and influence. That isn't going to happen until people are ready to have their own prized pigs slaughtered or at least put on a diet. The military is one of those pigs that could still do the job it does, on 75% of it's budget if not less. It's just horribly mismanaged.


.


.

 

[Pete7469]

I'm an independent because I know neither side has all the answers nor do I believe that either are evil. We are more nuanced than that and to think everything can be labelled and placed into a neat little one size fits all kind of box is just unrealistic.

Furthermore the only thing party politics has accomplished is to further divide people. We're to busy demonizing and hating one another simply for being on the "wrong side". We have to be better than that because that is the only way we're going to get a leader who truly intends to unite us and work for the betterment of the people. But as long as we continue to behave the way we do, our leadership will only reflect who we are as a society.

If my not choosing "sides" bothers you or anyone else than that's going to have to be something that you work out on your own. Voting party simply beacause we share a D or R in front is just dangerous and irresponsible and I will not blindly contribute to that sort of self destructive behavior. I will always choose integrity, honesty, and respectfulness regardless of affiliation simply because they will legitimately care about this nation and the people. So far those kinds of people are far and few between.

^^^^

THIS!!!

That is my point.

These are RIGHT Vs. WRONG issues at stake, not Republicrat Vs. Democrook, not Redneck Vs. Bed Wetters....

The problem is that there is absolute ZERO integrity in government. They have indeed divided people quite well. I readily admit I loathe every mouth breathing pinko commie Bernie zealot I get stuck behind puttering along slowly in their hybrid doing 60 in the left lane on a 70 MPH Highway more than I do the jack ass in a dual axle diesel truck with a Trump sticker on it.

However I'm still polite and mannerly when I have to interact with any of those "people" face to face. You'll never catch me keying their cars, driving over their lawns to run over political signs, screaming at them for wearing T-Shirts or hats, refusing to allow them access to things as much as I may believe they're genetic garbage. In real life I've got much better things to do.


.