Political Roundtable Part XVII

dckingsfan wrote:
gtn130 wrote:People increasingly identify as 'Independent' because it makes them feel smart and like they're above partisanship. It holds no bearing on how they vote.

I can't speak for other independents - although I have many friends who are of the same ilk. The reason we are independents is we feel neither of the parties truly represent our interests. You can probably figure out why that is with Republicans. But there are some very fine reasons not to believe the Ds represent our interests (especially on a local and state level).

And just because we are independents doesn't mean we aren't partisan on issues. Just not slaves (had to throw that in to equal you snark) to a particular party.

I won't address the snarky "feel smart" comment as the comment lacks intellectual depth

I actually wasn't taking a shot at you with that post, but I can see how you would think that. I was mostly talking about people I know in real life who are 100% Republican Fox News watchers but would rather say they're Independent.

I mean, SD20 is probably the best example here. Induveca is a good one too.

TGW · Post #490 » by **TGW** » Mon Jan 8, 2018 2:50 pm

Pointgod wrote:bu bu Trump is all about the working class

Read on Twitter

One of the most disastrous first years of a president in modern day history. Truly embarrassing.

dckingsfan · Post #491 » by **dckingsfan** » Mon Jan 8, 2018 3:09 pm

gtn130 wrote:
dckingsfan wrote:
gtn130 wrote:People increasingly identify as 'Independent' because it makes them feel smart and like they're above partisanship. It holds no bearing on how they vote.

I can't speak for other independents - although I have many friends who are of the same ilk. The reason we are independents is we feel neither of the parties truly represent our interests. You can probably figure out why that is with Republicans. But there are some very fine reasons not to believe the Ds represent our interests (especially on a local and state level).

And just because we are independents doesn't mean we aren't partisan on issues. Just not slaves (had to throw that in to equal you snark) to a particular party.

I won't address the snarky "feel smart" comment as the comment lacks intellectual depth

I actually wasn't taking a shot at you with that post, but I can see how you would think that. I was mostly talking about people I know in real life who are 100% Republican Fox News watchers but would rather say they're Independent.

I mean, SD20 is probably the best example here. Induveca is a good one too.

Interesting... I guess you could say that the independents are a mixed bag and hard to pin to one particular issue that bonds them to a party.

For example - if my ONE issue was a women's right to an abortion - I would be a D. Conversely, if my one issue was to stop abortions, I would be an R.

My BIGGEST issue is sustainable government. You can see where I wouldn't have a party.

And you might be right that there is a fractional part of the independents that are 100% Republican Fox News watchers but there are also a fractional part of the independents that are Greens. And there are crazies in both the R and D party as well.

I don't think that the anecdotal information about you encounters with independents is accurate.

dckingsfan · Post #492 » by **dckingsfan** » Mon Jan 8, 2018 3:19 pm

FAH1223 wrote:...

This is a really good message. It will be interesting to see if Ds really flip on this issue. In the past - they played lip service to it. Remember, much of the IP (not Monsanto) lies in CA, MA, WA, etc. The Ds have had a very hard time really getting behind what needs to be done on the issue(s).

In addition - they feel that farmers are mostly Rs - so it isn't their battle to pick.

Wizardspride · Post #493 » by **Wizardspride** » Mon Jan 8, 2018 3:23 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=669&v=hzlSo--hwzs

gtn130 · Post #494 » by **gtn130** » Mon Jan 8, 2018 3:32 pm

dckingsfan wrote:
gtn130 wrote:
dckingsfan wrote:I can't speak for other independents - although I have many friends who are of the same ilk. The reason we are independents is we feel neither of the parties truly represent our interests. You can probably figure out why that is with Republicans. But there are some very fine reasons not to believe the Ds represent our interests (especially on a local and state level).

And just because we are independents doesn't mean we aren't partisan on issues. Just not slaves (had to throw that in to equal you snark) to a particular party.

I won't address the snarky "feel smart" comment as the comment lacks intellectual depth

I actually wasn't taking a shot at you with that post, but I can see how you would think that. I was mostly talking about people I know in real life who are 100% Republican Fox News watchers but would rather say they're Independent.

I mean, SD20 is probably the best example here. Induveca is a good one too.

Interesting... I guess you could say that the independents are a mixed bag and hard to pin to one particular issue that bonds them to a party.

For example - if my ONE issue was a women's right to an abortion - I would be a D. Conversely, if my one issue was to stop abortions, I would be an R.

My BIGGEST issue is sustainable government. You can see where I wouldn't have a party.

And you might be right that there is a fractional part of the independents that are 100% Republican Fox News watchers but there are also a fractional part of the independents that are Greens. And there are crazies in both the R and D party as well.

I don't think that the anecdotal information about you encounters with independents is accurate.

My views do not perfectly align with the Democrats, but I'm gonna vote Democrat basically forever unless there is a cataclysmic political reorganization in my lifetime. I tell people I'm a Democrat while having many issues with the party because it's simply an efficient way of identifying where I stand.

And why would I bother telling everyone I'm a clear-eyed bold-thinking INDEPENDENT when there's only one way I'll ever vote? People say they're independent because they want to project having extremely nuanced opinions, unencumbered by bias or partisanship.

Obviously there are some exceptions to what I'm saying, but when 40% of the country identifies as Independent while one of the two major parties welcomes Nazis and pedophiles with open arms, um, maybe those people are being a little disingenuous?

Pointgod · Post #495 » by **Pointgod** » Mon Jan 8, 2018 4:55 pm

Wizardspride wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=669&v=hzlSo--hwzs

I know that there will be a ton of hot takes about how the next Democratic candidate should have political experience to which every Clinton supporter should scream what the ****. However the reason that Trump is a disaster is not because he doesn't have experience but simply because he's **** Donald Trump.

Oprah is a self made billionaire, built a media empire and unlike Trump wouldn't surround herself with woefully unqualified people. She actually came from poor beginnings and can connect to the working class. She's a great messenger for the "I need a candidate that excites me crowd". Besides Trump proves that the controlling the House and Congress is more important than just the Presidency.

queridiculo · Post #496 » by **queridiculo** » Mon Jan 8, 2018 5:33 pm

Just rename this thread to "sd20 needs help"?

dckingsfan · Post #497 » by **dckingsfan** » Mon Jan 8, 2018 5:35 pm

gtn130 wrote:
dckingsfan wrote:
gtn130 wrote:
I actually wasn't taking a shot at you with that post, but I can see how you would think that. I was mostly talking about people I know in real life who are 100% Republican Fox News watchers but would rather say they're Independent.

I mean, SD20 is probably the best example here. Induveca is a good one too.

Interesting... I guess you could say that the independents are a mixed bag and hard to pin to one particular issue that bonds them to a party.

For example - if my ONE issue was a women's right to an abortion - I would be a D. Conversely, if my one issue was to stop abortions, I would be an R.

My BIGGEST issue is sustainable government. You can see where I wouldn't have a party.

And you might be right that there is a fractional part of the independents that are 100% Republican Fox News watchers but there are also a fractional part of the independents that are Greens. And there are crazies in both the R and D party as well.

I don't think that the anecdotal information about you encounters with independents is accurate.

My views do not perfectly align with the Democrats, but I'm gonna vote Democrat basically forever unless there is a cataclysmic political reorganization in my lifetime. I tell people I'm a Democrat while having many issues with the party because it's simply an efficient way of identifying where I stand.

And why would I bother telling everyone I'm a clear-eyed bold-thinking INDEPENDENT when there's only one way I'll ever vote? People say they're independent because they want to project having extremely nuanced opinions, unencumbered by bias or partisanship.

Obviously there are some exceptions to what I'm saying, but when 40% of the country identifies as Independent while one of the two major parties welcomes Nazis and pedophiles with open arms, um, maybe those people are being a little disingenuous?

Actually, that makes the point. You are a single issue voter around discrimination. Others could be single issue voters around abortion for example. And others may be single issue voters around another issue(s) that aren't covered by either party.

What is interesting is you are tacitly defining anyone who doesn't vote D all the time as supporters of pedophiles. This was the same tactic used by the right when they said that anyone that didn't support Rs was for killing babies.

Both sets of logic are not accurate.

gtn130 · Post #498 » by **gtn130** » Mon Jan 8, 2018 6:04 pm

dckingsfan wrote:
gtn130 wrote:
dckingsfan wrote:Interesting... I guess you could say that the independents are a mixed bag and hard to pin to one particular issue that bonds them to a party.

For example - if my ONE issue was a women's right to an abortion - I would be a D. Conversely, if my one issue was to stop abortions, I would be an R.

My BIGGEST issue is sustainable government. You can see where I wouldn't have a party.

And you might be right that there is a fractional part of the independents that are 100% Republican Fox News watchers but there are also a fractional part of the independents that are Greens. And there are crazies in both the R and D party as well.

I don't think that the anecdotal information about you encounters with independents is accurate.

My views do not perfectly align with the Democrats, but I'm gonna vote Democrat basically forever unless there is a cataclysmic political reorganization in my lifetime. I tell people I'm a Democrat while having many issues with the party because it's simply an efficient way of identifying where I stand.

And why would I bother telling everyone I'm a clear-eyed bold-thinking INDEPENDENT when there's only one way I'll ever vote? People say they're independent because they want to project having extremely nuanced opinions, unencumbered by bias or partisanship.

Obviously there are some exceptions to what I'm saying, but when 40% of the country identifies as Independent while one of the two major parties welcomes Nazis and pedophiles with open arms, um, maybe those people are being a little disingenuous?

Actually, that makes the point. You are a single issue voter around discrimination. Others could be single issue voters around abortion for example. And others may be single issue voters around another issue(s) that aren't covered by either party.

What is interesting is you are tacitly defining anyone who doesn't vote D all the time as supporters of pedophiles. This was the same tactic used by the right when they said that anyone that didn't support Rs was for killing babies.

Both sets of logic are not accurate.

So this is the Xxxtreme Centrist talk that goes off the rails quickly.

While I wouldn't say I'm a "single issue voter around discrimination", it should be mentioned that discrimination is a pretty damn good line to draw in the sand. The fact that you acknowledge that one party is anti-discrimination and the other is not, and yet you still fall in the middle shows how backwards this whole line of thinking is. Discrimination is really bad! It should be a dealbreaker for any serious non-deplorable person.

Are you actually sitting there debating between the anti-discrimination pro-equality party and the Nazi party that supports a 20% tax deduction for pass-through businesses? Maybe you should calibrate your priorities or something?

Wizardspride · Post #499 » by **Wizardspride** » Mon Jan 8, 2018 6:13 pm

Pointgod wrote:
Wizardspride wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=669&v=hzlSo--hwzs

I know that there will be a ton of hot takes about how the next Democratic candidate should have political experience to which every Clinton supporter should scream what the ****. However the reason that Trump is a disaster is not because he doesn't have experience but simply because he's **** Donald Trump.

Oprah is a self made billionaire, built a media empire and unlike Trump wouldn't surround herself with woefully unqualified people. She actually came from poor beginnings and can connect to the working class. She's a great messenger for the "I need a candidate that excites me crowd". Besides Trump proves that the controlling the House and Congress is more important than just the Presidency.

Read on Twitter

verbal8 · Post #500 » by **verbal8** » Mon Jan 8, 2018 6:35 pm

Ben Carson Discovers $516.4 BILLION In Mismanaged Funds

Nope:
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/04/carson-didnt-find-hud-errors/

Net result of differences(not discovered by Carson in any way) was:

“Overall, the combined adjustments to the consolidated financial statements resulted in a net adjustment of $3 million, but no change in HUD’s financial position or impact on our programs.”