Why I am an independant voter.

[Clarkmeister]

5 Things I hate about the Democrats:

1. Political Correctness and the insistence that everyone be treated identically regardless of the context. Title IX is a great example, but there are many others. Also, since when did offending someones *feelings* become a crime. The media really irritates me with its blind acceptance of PC doctrine.

2. Social Security's existance and the way it is run. It is time to phase it out.

3. Abortion rights. I believe life is sacred and should only be taken in self defense, or in defense of others whose lives are threatened.

4. Unwillingness to examine ways to improve our school system, including the possibility of introducing competition.

5. Treating our military like the retarded cousin in our family that they don't want to keep, so they hide it in the basement.

5 Things I hate about the Republicans:

1. The death penalty. It's morally wrong, and that should be enough, but it isn't for some people. Thankfully there are many other valid reasons, including the fact that our justice system is horribly racially and economically biased in some parts of the country. Also it costs more to try and kill the offender than it does to just let them rot in jail.

2. For the party that claims to want small government, why are they continually intruding on my life? Recent legislation regarding internet gaming and McCain's bill to ban college sports betting in Nevada are but two examples of that.

3. Stop *over*spending on the military. They are doing "Star Wars" missle defense tests here in Nevada right now. What a ridiculous waste of money.

4. The rich *should* have to pay more in taxes. Realize this.

5. While most environmental activist groups go to far, stop acting like enacting any protective measure is to be avoided at all costs. There is such a thing as stewardship.

All that said, I tend to vote Republican in about 75% of cases, including 100% of presidential elections I have been eligible for, but that doesn't always mean I like it.

[HDPM]

A lot of people are like you, but I think it is a mistake to be independent. I agree with your positions on a lot of issues, but I am a somewhat active Republican. I disagree with a lot of the Republican crap though. Being an independent voter cedes power you might otherwise have to others. It sounds trite, but you can do more within the power structure rather than sniping from the outside.
The Republicans' position on stem cell research and human cloning really tests my patience though. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[Jimbo]

Clarkmeister you said The rich *should* have to pay more in taxes. Realize this. It is not quite as simple as you imply with this statement. People in the top 2% income brackets in this country pay 50% of the income tax. The top 10% (of which I am in) pay 90% of the taxe and the top 20% pay nearly all of the tax. If we could just get all the pro and semi-pro poker players to pay there fair share of taxes we could help more poor people. I agree many local taxes and the Social Security tax are regressive and could use some reform but if my choice is to either raise everyones taxes (Democrats) or lower taxes on those who pay an unfair share (Republicans) I am sticking with the latter.

If you lower taxes it is obviously going to give more back in total dollars to the wealthy people since the poor people pay no tax to begin with. What is so unfair or difficult to understand about this concept?

Most of the rest of what you addressed makes very good sense to me as well. However John McCain is about as republican as Al Gore, we just got unlucky when he chose our political party. Also the residual benefits of the Star Wars program may well outweigh the original intent of the program just as NASA research has benefitted our daily lives far beyond simply learning about celestial bodies.

Keep in mind I was raised as a poor ignorant democrat untill I was old enough to develope my own opinions and understand the error of my parents ways. You may argue that I now sound like a middle class ignorant republican but I feel it is the more fair and practical choice.

[HDPM]

Ahh, someone else knocking McCain. Thank you. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

[MMMMMM]

I am an Independent but I have considered your argument and it has merits. On more issues than not I tend to side with the Republican position but some posditions are simply stupid. I dislike certain things about both parties, especially the tendency of those in congress to tow the party line. Why the hell can't every issue just be evaluated on its own merits. Maybe I just get too annoyed at what I see as stupidity, but I guess that's my problem.

You are correct about the "rich" paying the majority of the taxes. but, that depends what you mean by the term "rich." if you mean independent families or people with money, then yes you are right. But, if you mean multinational corporations, which are the truly rich, then you are wrong. i am not necessarily arguing with you, i just feel that we need to define what we mean by "rich" or any term in order to make an argument.

craig r.

[IrishHand]

Why the hell can't every issue just be evaluated on its own merits.
Nah...that would make way too much sense. Why evaluate things on their own merits when you can cater to special interest groups and line your pocket while you're at it?

[Clarkmeister]

No matter what you do, the top 1-2% is going to pay the majority of dollars in taxes. That's just a product of the dollars at stake. I simply think that the richest people should pay higher percentages of their income in taxes. I have no problem with people earning less than say 30k paying minimal to no income tax with people earning in excess of say 500k paying 40% or more with some sort of geometric gradation between the two extremes. Is it "fair" to those who are capable of earning that amount? No, but I think there are tradeoffs to have a society where a working class and middle class can exist comfortably.

Lets face it, the more money those low and middle income families have, the more money the richest 1% earn. I could argue that it is the exact REVERSE of Reganomics. Consumers have more to spend, corporations make more money, the wealthy get richer, thus supplying the revenue needed to allow the consumers to have more money to spend. Maybe its BS, but so is the Laffer curve.

[Clarkmeister]

I don't know that I'm giving up anything. I don't feel being able to vote in the Primary is a huge benefit. In the general elections, I tend to vote Republican 75%, Democrat 20%, Other 5%. I'm not an activist type of person, so voting is the beginning and end of my participation in the system, so being outside it or inside it really doesn't matter for me.

[Clarkmeister]

I, too wish every issue could be considered on its own merits. The problem is that so few issues come to the floor as a stand alone issue. Everything seems to be bundled in these large bills where even passing a reaonable law or appropriation brings dozens of little bull-hockey "tag along" issues that have nothing to do with the core one.

[Clarkmeister]

Exactly. That's why we need hard and reasonable caps on the amount candidates are allowed to spend on elections. Sadly, dollars equal votes and as long as that is the case and no reasonable caps are implemented, it will continue.

[HDPM]

A lot of times the most important vote you will cast is in the primary. Party activism aside, primaries are important. Where I am, the Republican primary is often the real election. /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif

[Clarkmeister]

Yeah, that's definitely true in some locale's. I grew up around Chicago where the Democratic Primary was the de facto Mayoral election.

[andyfox]

"People in the top 2% income brackets in this country pay 50% of the income tax. The top 10% (of which I am in) pay 90% of the taxe and the top 20% pay nearly all of the tax."

The 1% with the highest income in this counjtry increased their share of all income from 7.3% in 1977 to 12.9% in 1999. They increasesd their average after-tax income from $234,700 to $515,600.

At the same time, the people in the lowest 20% income brackets saw their share of all income decline from 5.7% to 5.2% and their average after-tax income decline from $10,000 to $8,800.

I'm in that top 1% and I hang out with people who are there too. They complain about taxes incessantly. They (and I) could pay double what we now pay and not have it affect our lifestyle at all,, nor have it eliminate any jobs for people who work for us.

In life, like in poker, money talks and bullshit walks. Since money determines who makes the laws, it is not surprising that the laws benefit those with the most money.

I highly recommend Wealth and Democracy by Kevin Phillips (Republican) for a look at wealth and power in the United States.

[andyfox]

"you can do more within the power structure rather than sniping from the outside."

Depends on who the "you" is. I think Ross Perot had a real chance to be elected President until he went off the deep end. Clinton was running a poor 3rd in the polls, with Perot neck-and-neck with Bush in mid-1992. A populist type who's a little less weird, I think, could accomplish a great deal outside of the major parties. Of course he'd need a few billion dollars to fight city hall.

Also, on the local level, it is possible to accomplish a lot outside the system. In a previous life, I was active in the People's Republic of Santa Monica and, in an organization that was independent of either political party, we managed to bring about a genuine revolution in the way the city was run. The organization based itself on a strict rent control policy, but was able to get the backing of people and organizations one would think it would not have had an afinity with, by, for example, supporting large pay increases for the police and other city employees, and by encouraging massive commercial development projects within the city. We started out handing out leaflets in supermarket parking lots and controlled the city within two years.

[andyfox]

"Treating our military like the retarded cousin in our family"

Maybe they talk a good game, but Democrats have always been at the forefront of defense department budget increases, new weapons programs, and military adventurism.

The best case for being an independent was, I believe, made by journalist I.F. Stone, who noted that "every government is run by liars and nothing they say should be believed."

Then you are in favor of prosecuting internet poker players! This is a Republican initiative. We always knew that you were a true blue American. Wait! Don't you play internet poker everyday?

[HDPM]

Yes, but you accomplished stuff once you got into office. You can do a lot in local politics outside of the party system. But in legislative wrangling, and many other areas, party politics play a big role.

[Jimbo]

If internet poker becomes illegal in my locale I will quit. What I am truly in favor of is sterilization of anonymous posters with no facts to substantiate their positions.

[adios]

Why I'm not a registered Democrat:

1. They pander to special interest groups too much.

2. They waste govt. tax dollars on their "pet" projects.

3. They have a low regard for the bill of rights.

4. Extremest elements of their party exert to much influence and control.

Why I'm not a registered Republican:

1. They pander to special interest groups too much.

2. They waste govt. tax dollars on their "pet" projects.

3. They have a low regard for the bill of rights.

4. Extremest elements of their party exert to much influence and control.

[MMMMMM]

I agree, and...I think that as Independents, we should be able to vote in EITHER primary we choose, but not in BOTH. That would make more sense, it seems, and be more fair too...any reasons why not?

[HDPM]

Yes there are reasons. My state has open primaries as you suggest and things go along, but I believe you should have to be a party member to vote in a primary. Political parties are interesting creatures that function under the election laws. There are laws governing party governance and their functions. People who are not members of the party should not be allowed to decide who that party's candidate in a general election is. Independent voters may be a moderating influence in primaries, but that is not anybody's business except the party's. I should have no right to vote for Democrats in a primary because I am not a Democrat. My only interest in voting would be to subvert their party.

[IrishHand]

My only interest in voting would be to subvert their party.

Just because you're jaded and apparently unable to be open-minded and objective doesn't mean the average American is. If you were given the option of voting in the primary of your choice, common sense would dictate that you'd choose that which gave you the chance to best support your chosen candidate - not vote to 'subvert' a part.

[Jimbo]

But IrishHand, voting for a probable loser in the opposite party's primaries would further the goals of your particular party of choice.

[brad]

david rockefeller testified before congress that he paid absolutely no taxes.

[IrishHand]

How do you figure that? It's incredibly difficult to tell during primaries which candidate would have the best chance to win the presidency. In those cases when it is clear, the clealy superior candidate will win by so much that a pile of simpletons from the opposing party who were trying to be 'subversive' would accomplish nothing.

Even if, hypothetically speaking, the Democrats were able to 'convince' enough of their voters to change the results of the Republican primaries, there's certainly no guarantee (or even a reasonable likelihood) that that would affect the result of the presidential election.

More importantly (and this is my point), the moment a staunch Democrat choses to vote in the Republican primaries (for example), he loses his say in who represents the Democrats in the coming election.

[Jimbo]

IrishHand you said "It's incredibly difficult to tell during primaries which candidate would have the best chance to win the presidency." I agree with this but it is not that incredibly difficult to tell which candidate would have little to no chance to win the presidency which is exactly my point. If enough savy Republicans in enough states could sway the primaries such that a very probable loser would receive the Democratic nomination then the goal is achieved no matter which Democratic candidate was more likely to have a chance to win the national election.

You also said Even if, hypothetically speaking, the Democrats were able to 'convince' enough of their voters to change the results of the Republican primaries, there's certainly no guarantee (or even a reasonable likelihood) that that would affect the result of the presidential election." There most certainly is, see my explanation above.

In general any Republican candidate would be preferable to nearly all democrats so I might be forfeiting my first choice of candidates but prefer the lesser of the evils.

[HDPM]

Well, I am jaded and not seen as objective, but that is because I am opinionated. Open minded? Probably. Anyway, back to the issue. In the primaries here, people vote for precinct committemen. These people are elected by the party to perform certain functions. These duties include being part of a central committee which votes for candidates to replace elected officials or candidates of the party. So if a Republican legislator dies, the central committeemen from the district meet and nominate replacements to be appointed by the governor. It can be an important task. There is no way an independent or a democrat should be allowed to meddle in Republican affairs like that. And Republicans should not do the same thing to Democrats. I firmly believe that you should have to declare a party and only vote in a primary for that party's candidates. These party issues are not matters of form, decisions have real consequences and parties serve real purposes. People should not participate in those decisions iof they are not willing to join a party.

P.S. I AM jaded enough to say the Average American is a moron and I don't think we should gear policies to morons.

[IrishHand]

I AM jaded enough to say the Average American is a moron and I don't think we should gear policies to morons.

The average American is a moron - that's not being jaded, that's being smart. /forums/images/icons/ooo.gif

[IrishHand]

If enough savy Republicans in enough states could sway the primaries such that a very probable loser would receive the Democratic nomination

You're not talking about a handful of people - you're talking about millions. Basically, you're saying the result of letting people vote in whichever primary they wanted (but only 1) would be a nationwide political conspiracy to ensure that an incompetent was nominated by the opposing party. And this would generate different results from the current system how?

Irish