After 5 years, I decided to change my political affiliation

[tshade]

I hope you continue the fight for a better educational system. I hope you can make it better. I just don't think it can be done from inside the system that protects itself.

I don't see individual voters having a "system that protects itself"........................voters can change that system

 

[ASHES]

I don't see individual voters having a "system that protects itself"........................voters can change that system

When they decide to. Voting for a different suit or pantsuit is not going to change a thing.

You are blaming the system, but it sounds like you need to blame the person you see in the mirror....

That is not what this space is for. I used my experience with a TBI to contextualize my opinion of Gabby Giffords the other day. Nobody demanded to see my scars, not that I would show them if asked. You misquoted me as saying the "system" failed me, when that is not what I said. I was very specific and your mischaractarization doesn't change a thing about the points my posts make.

If I were a black man using that life experience to contextualize my experience with police interaction, would you demand I prove my race? That is what you are doing.

Either accept my contextualization or don't, but it is not what the thread about, nor is that kind of tone what the loft is about. I can tell you care deeply, but you're misplacing your attention. You breeze right by my thoughtfully crafted political discussion and try to change the subject to my personal life. My sharing the context of my experience is not an invitation to do so or to claim I am the problem. Thank you for understanding.

 

[Perotista]

It is worse to help the lesser candidate win

You’re assuming by voting third party or not voting at all is helping the lesser candidate. But who is the lesser candidate, who determines that? In one’s eye the lesser candidate may be candidate A while in another’s eye, it is candidate B. There are instances where both candidates A and B are considered lesser. But the bottom line by voting third party or not voting at all doesn’t help or hurt either major party’s candidates. Neither goes up a vote or by one and neither drops a vote or goes down. To help the lesser candidate as you put it, one must vote for that candidate although in the eyes of many others that lesser candidate in your eyes is the better candidate.

My bottom line is if a candidate or candidates doesn’t merit or deserve the office they’re running for, they’re not getting my vote as I refuse to help any candidate or candidates that doesn’t merit the office.

 

[tshade]

When they decide to. Voting for a different suit or pantsuit is not going to change a thing.

well, no------and whose fault is that? The voters are being irresponsible....

 

[tshade]

You’re assuming by voting third party or not voting at all is helping the lesser candidate. But who is the lesser candidate, who determines that? In one’s eye the lesser candidate may be candidate A while in another’s eye, it is candidate B. There are instances where both candidates A and B are considered lesser. But the bottom line by voting third party or not voting at all doesn’t help or hurt either major party’s candidates. Neither goes up a vote or by one and neither drops a vote or goes down. To help the lesser candidate as you put it, one must vote for that candidate although in the eyes of many others that lesser candidate in your eyes is the better candidate.

It depends on the situation. Many people stayed home in 2016 that NEVER would have voted for Trump, and assumed HRC would win. Many others do not take the time to study the field. There is ALWAYS a better candidate. Many are too lazy or irresponsible to care.....

My bottom line is if a candidate or candidates doesn’t merit or deserve the office they’re running for, they’re not getting my vote as I refuse to help any candidate or candidates that doesn’t merit the office.

????? Are you such an expert as to know this??? The experts have been fooled for 200 years------are you THAT good??

 

[ASHES]

well, no------and whose fault is that? The voters are being irresponsible....

On that we can agree, but probably not for the same reasons.

 

[tshade]

On that we can agree, but probably not for the same reasons.

?????

 

[ASHES]

?????

In time.

 

[dseag2]

How so? A bit more explanation might remove my confusion. Party affiliation is not a requirement to participate in any party's primary. Caveat being in the case of a runoff. Then the voter is restricted to the party in whose primary they participated.

Can Independents Vote in U.S. Primaries? | Unite America

Learn how independents are disenfranchised from participating in congressional and state primaries across 15 states.

www.uniteamerica.org

 

[Parrish]

I vote for the candidate whose values most mirror mine. It's never been a republican. My city council is not party affiliated, so I vote for who reflects my values and the issues of my town. My vote reflects my values. It always will. I always for those who will best meet the interests of my children, family and the least. That's never the lesser of 2 evils. When I vote it's to support the ideals of the constitution.

 

[Along Came Jones]

Can Independents Vote in U.S. Primaries? | Unite America

Learn how independents are disenfranchised from participating in congressional and state primaries across 15 states.

www.uniteamerica.org

Thanks for the link. You originally wrote, "There may be some freedom involved but hubby is a registered Independent so he cannot vote in Primary elections in TX." The link confirms my experience of many decades as voting in both Democratic and Republican primaries. Our primaries are open.

I thought you might be referring to those areas which might make state delegate selections via caucusing. The "Texas two step" system was abandoned in 2008. The way it worked was first a voter cast a ballot in either the Republican or Democratic primary. Then the voter showed his stamped voter registration to gain entrance to the caucus. If you voted in the Democratic primary, then you could not participate in the Republican caucus. Easy to see why it was abandoned.

 

[Perotista]

It depends on the situation. Many people stayed home in 2016 that NEVER would have voted for Trump, and assumed HRC would win. Many others do not take the time to study the field. There is ALWAYS a better candidate. Many are too lazy or irresponsible to care.....

????? Are you such an expert as to know this??? The experts have been fooled for 200 years------are you THAT good??

I just go by my likes and dislikes, my judgement. No, I’m not an expert, but the experts don’t know me, and the experts don’t vote for me either or think like I do. Also, the experts get it wrong at times. 2016 was an interesting election where 137 million people voted, 6% or 8 million people were so disgusted with the choice the major parties offered, they voted third party, against both major party candidates. In a two-way race, just Clinton vs. Trump with no third choice, just those two. Out of that 6% 16% said they’d have voted for Clinton with no third choice, 19% for Trump, 65% said they’d stay home and not have voted. That says a lot about the choice both major parties made. Those 8 million people thought it important enough to them to go to the polls to vote against both major party candidates. Even though they knew their third choice had no chance of winning. They wanted to voice their opposition, to have their vote officially registered as being against both major party candidates.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/national/president

I was one of those, I voted for Gary Johnson in 2016. Out of those 8 million, with no third party choice, making them choose the lesser candidate as you put it, 1.3 million would have voted for Clinton, 1.5 million for Trump, the rest would have stayed home and not voted, they wouldn’t make the lesser choice. Actually, those voting third party helped Clinton as Trump would have added more to his vote total than Clinton would. Approximately 200,000 more votes.

 

[NWRatCon]

I have been "other" since I joined DP. The problem, of course, is that none of the "labels" is universal. On some subjects I'm conservative (but what that "means" seems to vary constantly), on others would be deemed quite liberal. What I try to be is consistent.

I've been a member of both political parties, but cannot associate with my former party, even obliquely. I don't even recognize it anymore. It's defunct. But, that doesn't mean I fit naturally in the other.

I believe most strongly in following my principles, even at risk to myself. My guidestars are in my name, which most people have never figured out, but I'll divulge here: RATional CONstitutionalist. I revere the Constitution, not for all its content (some of which, especially originally, was/is weak - it definitely needs tweaking), but for the world it envisions: of We, the People, striving to perfect our union and "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". Those are some damned fine aspirations.

And in everything, every day, we must be rational. Blindly following scripts can lead to some very dark corners (as our Supreme Court regularly demonstrates). Our founders were rational people who tried to create a rational document, and we owe it to them, and ourselves, to apply its principles rationally. They did a good job - for 250 years ago - but the world has changed a little bit over the years. Rational is not always convenient or neat, but generally leads to the best results.

Those positions, however, put me in nearly constant tension with the way things are going, especially politically, nowadays. We are being led by the feckless and unprincipled, headlong into insanity. The subjects are legion, and the risks incalculable, and it seems the choices taken are the worst imaginable. So, I'm trying, as best as I can, to get back to my guidestars, making me exactly "other".

 

[ASHES]

I have been "other" since I joined DP. The problem, of course, is that none of the "labels" is universal. On some subjects I'm conservative (but what that "means" seems to vary constantly), on others would be deemed quite liberal. What I try to be is consistent.

First, thank you for the long and thoughtful reply, I can not wait to see what all it entails and what I can learn and understand from this interaction.

I agree about universality. It was difficult sometimes reckoning and balancing conservative/liberal/whatever policies, and deciding which box that meant I should be in. I don't think having the issues be so constrictively labeled and classified is helpful to the whole situation either. You shouldn't have to decide always so binarily between two opposing right or correct actions.

Clarity brings consistency, even if also ambivalence.

I've been a member of both political parties, but cannot associate with my former party, even obliquely. I don't even recognize it anymore. It's defunct. But, that doesn't mean I fit naturally in the other.

It is surprising and sad watching what time can do to once great things.

I believe most strongly in following my principles, even at risk to myself. My guidestars are in my name, which most people have never figured out, but I'll divulge here: RATional CONstitutionalist. I revere the Constitution, not for all its content (some of which, especially originally, was/is weak - it definitely needs tweaking), but for the world it envisions: of We, the People, striving to perfect our union and "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". Those are some damned fine aspirations.

And in everything, every day, we must be rational. Blindly following scripts can lead to some very dark corners (as our Supreme Court regularly demonstrates). Our founders were rational people who tried to create a rational document, and we owe it to them, and ourselves, to apply its principles rationally. They did a good job - for 250 years ago - but the world has changed a little bit over the years. Rational is not always convenient or neat, but generally leads to the best results.

Those positions, however, put me in nearly constant tension with the way things are going, especially politically, nowadays. We are being led by the feckless and unprincipled, headlong into insanity. The subjects are legion, and the risks incalculable, and it seems the choices taken are the worst imaginable. So, I'm trying, as best as I can, to get back to my guidestars, making me exactly "other".

The rest of that I can't argue with or comment better myself. Echos things I have been saying. We need individual principles if we're to grow, not belonging to this or that tribe telling us what's right today or which other tribe to not like for whatever reason. But that is a difficult thing to manifest into a political reality, and so sometimes we get stuck, and sometimes we spiral.

 

[bomberfox]

Wrong. It wasn't always so polarized. We even had a civil war. That's not serving us well, it's keeping us trapped in a vicious cycle most don't want to escape from. We can do better.

Afraid theres no reforming our way out of this.

 

[ASHES]

Afraid theres no reforming our way out of this.

Self reflecting. Introspecting. Compromising. Compassion for our rivals with understanding they also want what they believe is good for all and not necessarily what is bad for us. Instead of telling them what they're doing is bad, lead by example how things should be. Speak for ourselves and not for what we believe they want to do to us. That can certainly seem impossible right now with how loud and extreme of a spectrum the voices emanating are now compared to the slow measured pace of before instant global communication, and how that is manifesting in our elected officials and voting body. Lack of civility and overall coherence in tone. One person at a time, to change. I know it's a lot of work and nobody wants to do it right now. It must be done. Otherwise what happens?


Just my half ass opinion. It is no better than any other.

 

[bomberfox]

Self reflecting. Introspecting. Compromising. Compassion for our rivals with understanding they also want what they believe is good for all and not necessarily what is bad for us. Instead of telling them what they're doing is bad, lead by example how things should be. Speak for ourselves and not for what we believe they want to do to us. That can certainly seem impossible right now with how loud and extreme of a spectrum the voices emanating are now compared to the slow measured pace of before instant global communication, and how that is manifesting in our elected officials and voting body. Lack of civility and overall coherence in tone. One person at a time, to change. I know it's a lot of work and nobody wants to do it right now. It must be done. Otherwise what happens?


Just my half ass opinion. It is no better than any other.

Well you dont live with people who wanted to kill your right to representation :\. Without justice there can be no peace. I tried everything with my own mother and she is still locked in the trump cult.

 

[ASHES]

Well you dont live with people who wanted to kill your right to representation :\. Without justice there can be no peace.

I hope justice comes. But I don't think we can predict what that justice looks like either. Was there really justice after the civil war? No. I don't think so. But there was enough forgiveness for a peace for some time. If they had gone all the way would we be here?

 

[bomberfox]

I hope justice comes. But I don't think we can predict what that justice looks like either. Was there really justice after the civil war? No. I don't think so. But there was enough forgiveness for a peace for some time. If they had gone all the way would we be here?

Forgiveness comes from asking for it. Maga will never ask for it. I dont necessarily know if we would have suffered several decades of terror if we had gone all the way.

 

[ASHES]

Forgiveness comes from asking for it. Maga will never ask for it.

That is true right now. I have also heard atonement from people that I never believed would offer it. One at a time. Until the balance is restored. May take a long time that feels like forever or never.

 

[bythoughts]

I think we all know it's 1933, and nobody wants to be marked as that guy who joined the Party in 1934. It's just a matter of procrastinating, hoping against hope, wondering how you're going to choke it down.

 

[ASHES]

I think we all know it's 1933, and nobody wants to be marked as that guy who joined the Party in 1934. It's just a matter of procrastinating, hoping against hope, wondering how you're going to choke it down.

That's a pyschological trap for them. We aren't going down that road.

 

[Fearandloathing]

There may be some freedom involved but hubby is a registered Independent so he cannot vote in Primary elections in TX. Each state has its own rules.

I could not tolerate a democracy that insists I reveal my political leanings.

what's next? Religion? Sexual orientation? Hobbies?

"The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation". Pierre Trudeau 1968. The state has no business in the lives of the people.

 

[RF667799]

I could not tolerate a democracy that insists I reveal my political leanings.

You don't have to in the US.

what's next? Religion? Sexual orientation? Hobbies?

"The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation". Pierre Trudeau 1968. The state has no business in the lives of the people.

A call for anarchy.

 

[NWRatCon]

First, thank you for the long and thoughtful reply, I can not wait to see what all it entails and what I can learn and understand from this interaction.

I thank you for the invitation. Frankly, I think the Loft is where I naturally belong (I'm long-winded), and where good discussions can really take place.

I agree about universality. It was difficult sometimes reckoning and balancing conservative/liberal/whatever policies, and deciding which box that meant I should be in. I don't think having the issues be so constrictively labeled and classified is helpful to the whole situation either. You shouldn't have to decide always so binarily between two opposing right or correct actions.

I've never really cottoned to the idea that things are binary. It's a bad habit that has infested our political discourse. I'll give an example, hopefully without derailing an excellent thread: immigration. People seem to thing there are only two kinds of "immigrants" - legal or illegal. There are as many reasons to emigrate as there are people, and, as needs must, there must be a variety of processes for accepting or rejecting aspirants. Even "illegality" is a fluid thing (and not really a thing at all, as the INA only describes them as "undocumented"), as this regime is currently demonstrating. Most of the people being picked up a) arrived here legally, and have committed no criminal violations. Some have been made "illegal" by the revocation of their legitimate status. (That is not a policy "change", it's just plain malicious.) The point is, the immigration "system" is both chaotic - and being made more so - and underresourced. It can be fixed, and relatively easily, but that would eliminate it as a divisive issue, and thus politically inexpedient.

Clarity brings consistency, even if also ambivalence.

I'm not sure I follow. Ambivalence? When I have clarity, it gives me certitude and I get more passionate and conscientious about my principles.

It is surprising and sad watching what time can do to once great things.

Indeed.

The rest of that I can't argue with or comment better myself. Echos things I have been saying. We need individual principles if we're to grow, not belonging to this or that tribe telling us what's right today or which other tribe to not like for whatever reason. But that is a difficult thing to manifest into a political reality, and so sometimes we get stuck, and sometimes we spiral.

What I would like, frankly, is a reconnection to animating principles. People in general (on both sides) are in reaction mode, which leads to less considered approaches. If we focus on core principles, rather than the "outrage of the week/day", it makes it easier to respond appropriately. Ask the question: does it "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty, ensure equality for all under the law?" If not, why is it being pursued? More often than not it is for political gain, corrupt purposes, or just plain viciousness. None of those are principles aligned with the Constitution. Admittedly, with the level of outrageous behavior currently on offer, that is the more difficult path to pursue, but more worthy.