Voting Independently: why does it seem like such a foreign concept?

13»

Comments

  • Plutarch
    Plutarch Members Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭✭✭
    janklow wrote: »
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    Al Qaeda came about because Russia was invading a country and we funded them to stop Russia.
    uh, no. if we're talking about guys like Bin Laden, they got their money from the Middle East.

    Yes, I believe that America funded the Afghans who fought the Soviets. They did not necessarily fund bin Laden/al-Qaeda, especially since al-Qaeda only came about after that war. However, since the "same" Afghans that we funded later are/were now in league with radical/terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and Taliban, the claim that America indirectly "funded" (or at least supported) al-Qaeda might not be far from the truth.

    Of course, the American government denies this claim, and if they're lying, it's obvious to understand why. But the American government denied supporting the Colombian mercs who helped take down Pablo Escobar. From what I've seen and heard, that particular investigation is still ongoing, but the CIA has never looked more guilty. Didn't the CIA secretly take out Lumumba? Didn't the CIA secretly sale arms to Iran? Didn't the CIA secretly fund Nicaragua? Didn't the CIA secretly fund Cuban rebels? Would it really be a stretch to say that America secretly funded or supported bin Laden (who was admittedly already wealthy at the time) shortly before he created al-Qaeda?
  • Plutarch
    Plutarch Members Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭✭✭
    s2jepeka wrote: »
    @Plutarch

    I'll just hav to agree to disagree. You sound very...ambitious. There's a fine line between ambition and naiivety...

    Lol, well at least you're being honest. But I can say the same thing: I honestly think that you sound hopeless, impatient, and/or arrogant. Is what I'm saying ambitious? Hell yes. Naive? I honestly don't understand. So we're talking about my ideas about the process of "reforming" our "two party system" by genuinely looking at all of our options, including third parties. Would those ideas be difficult to implement? Yes, certainly. After all we're talking about changing a system. Now, would those ideas be impossible to implement? I say no. I'd agree and call myslef naive only if the answer was yes. But I think that I've given several bits of facts and evidence to suggest that the process is very much possible and wide open to execute. Thinking that such a reality is impossible reeks of hopelessness, impatience, and arrogance to me.
    s2jepeka wrote: »
    One thing i'll say is, if a Rep. or Dem. 'compromises', his base blasts him

    If an Independent WAS in a position to have to compromise (they dont have to now, as i stated in my previous post),
    it would be like fidning out Santa Clause is not real.[/quote]

    Again, I mostly disagree. Like I've said, compromise is fact of life in politics, so unless it's a serious betrayal of integrity, people should/would get over it. And who's to say that compromises aren't a good thing at times. We can't always be right all of the time and turn a deaf ear to different points of view. I also mentioned that voting like-independents into Congress could help an independent president avoid choosing between making bad compromises and having all of his bills vetoed.
    s2jepeka wrote: »
    This is what sickens me: LOL People who claim to 'not be into politics' and 'tired of the games' always gravitate toward the underdog, like Independts arent politicians themselves. It would break yall little 'rebellious' hearts to see what your precious Independents would become if they got in the game.

    I have no idea who this slightly irrelevant point was intended for since I am both into politics and am well aware how "? " said politics are, but if you're implying that there are bandwagon and naive independents, then you're just stating the obvious. If you're implying that most independent supporters are naive and/or bandwagonish, then that's just laughable and just shows how prejudiced and arrogant you are when it comes to how you treat independent supporterts and independent parties. You'd be surprised how knowledgeable and passionate many independent supporters are and can be. Once again, I'd like to point out that there are probably at least tens of millions more naive and bandwagonish Democrat and Republican supporters in comparison to the number of naive and bandwagonish independent supporters.

    But again you miss the point. This has nothing to do with winning, being rebellious, or being the underdog, but has everything to do with genuinely and freely representing yourself as an American who simply wants to contribute to the creation of a better America - which is the essential point of voting. It shouldn't matter if you don't fit so neatly into the Republican-Democrat dichotomy.
  • Jabu_Rule
    Jabu_Rule Members Posts: 5,993 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2012
    Plutarch wrote: »
    I think that I understand what you are saying, and I mostly agree. However, wouldn't you agree that Republicans and Democrats are unwilling to be genuinely open minded when it comes to many issues, platforms, and/or policies? Some may say that both parties can't afford to be open minded because they must pander to the American public and they must compromise their integrity simply for the sake of votes. Both parties aren't so much concerned with which candidate has genuine (and thus transgressive) policies as much as they are concerned with which candidate is the most presentable (e.g., Mitt Romney). This fact severely limits the variety of acceptable/presentable candidates that can achieve success in either major party. A "moderate" Republican candidate who has Democratic tendencies is not going to get a lot of love in the Republican party. Even Romney had flip flop to ensure his demographic that he's a "legitimate" Republican.

    I think Democrats and hopefully Republicans are more concerned like any human with who can articulate their goals better. Weather they reach those goals is a ? shoot. The same that you said would apply to an independent regardless of your views on a party. A party attempts to cover most views under a particular spectrum so a member has a better chance of encompassing the likable values already unless an independent can present something uniquely different. I see many politicians become independent only because they don't get party support yet still do well in their neck of the woods because of likability, but a presidential race is different. Democrats have accepted people with conservative values but not vice versa. Both parties have been known to compromise on many issues but there was an agenda vocally expressed by Republicans not to compromise this go round. There has been joint legislation by both parties and a few times party members crossed the isles for a vote. Blue dogs showed themselves to be far more conservative then they claimed on many issues and many wondered if they had any Liberal values, while republicans questioned their conservatism when they did vote blue.
    Plutarch wrote: »
    I'm not 100% certain that Libertarians only caucus with Republicans, but it wouldn't be surprising. The only thing that truly links Libertarians with Republicans is that both generally vie for limited government. A Libertarian may advocate some standard Republican principles, but the same Libertarian may also advocate other major principles that are either very different or very oppositional when compared to standard Republican principles. Just look at Ron Paul. You'd have to define what a true "Republican" is if you really think that a Libertarian is a Republican. Wait, didn't you just argue in your first paragraph that Republicans represent a variety of different platforms? So then why would you say that Libertarians are Republicans...Ok now i'm confused. I'm not even sure what we were originally arguing about here.

    Ok, let me back up. This might be a case of semantics here. I'm going to use "Republican" in two different contexts: one in the context of the Republican party, and the other in the context of Republican principles. So if you are saying that Libertarians are more like Republicans (party), then I might be able to agree with you there especially if you are also saying that Republicans (party) represent a wide variety of different Republican (principles)ideas and platforms. In this case, Libertarians would be a type of group within the Republican party, and the Republican party would include many different kinds of politicians and parties who have different Republican principles.

    However, if you are saying that Libertarians aren't a distinctive group within the Republican party, then I disagree. And if you are saying that there isn't a general yet dominant set of Republican principles within the Republican party, then I again disagree. Why do you think that Ron Paul said that he would have refused the endorsement of then-president George Bush during his campaign for presidency? He said that because George Bush, who represent that dominant set of Republican principles within the Republican party, does not represent the set of Republican principles within the Libertarian party. Could you picture the Republican party's presidential nominee rejecting the current-standing Republican president during a presidential election? That would be unheard of.

    If you have an R behind your name, then you picked a side in the values arena. I already made the point that they share most values except for a few that obviously aren't enough for them to go it alone. The point of the OP is why not vote third party. Well one has to be a legitimate third party first with majority vote and legislature put forward as a third independent party with no R on your name from jump or at least post a substantial political shift to said party. But i already said parties have gradients which is why Hillary and Obama were in serious opposition for president unlike the buddy fest that was the Republican primaries.
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Lol, define "weirdo" and "extreme" because those terms might just simply mean "different." And different doesn't necessarily mean bad. The way I see things now, different can mean necessary and good. I hope that you're not making the general assumption that third party candidates are weirdos and have extreme idea because that's ? . As a matter fact, I think that Obama has been a weirdo with extreme ideas at times, and we voted him in office, so I don't see your point about voters not wanting to vote for weirdos with extreme ideas. I'm also still quite confused because you seem to be saying that third parties are "out there" and unvotable, but at the same time you're saying that third parties are not that different than the major parties. Is this not a contradiction?

    I'm not denying that there isn't anything good and worth being patient for in the the major parties, and I'm certainly not trying to change your vote (I'm not sure how that came up). I'm simply making the argument that third parties 1. are necessary to better represent the variety of American politics, 2. are distinct entities within themselves, and 3. can make a difference, especially once we see past this flawed "two party system." I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "fringe" ideas, but if you consider ideas about foreign policy, the federal reserve, and the War on Drugs (and let me remind you that Libertarians and "Republicans" do not agree at all on these ideas) to be fringe, then I think that you're sorely mistaken.

    Weirdo to me is unreachable and downright dangerous goals like eliminating actual departments in government and not replacing them with a sound alternative. Handing over the reigns to private institutions knowing the tickknowledgy that they employ in not following standards at all. Going on a Gold standard which couldn't possibly support our sort of economy or the worlds economy. Killing equal rights amendments. Eliminating regulations and so on and so on. Destroying the FED for no other reason then you think they suck with no reasonable alternatives other then a far more splintered country with varying currency and direct government meddling. Weirdo ? . Obama actually won because he wasn't offering weirdo ? .
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Yes, I believe that America funded the Afghans who fought the Soviets. They did not necessarily fund bin Laden/al-Qaeda, especially since al-Qaeda only came about after that war.
    what's more accurate to say is that America funded Pakistan and the ISI then turned around and funded who they liked, and then America gave some stipends to a few other people. none of them, however, were Bin Laden (because that's not how he raised money) or al-Qaeda (for the reason you mention). this is ALSO not to say that this method of funding didn't result in some ? -up characters getting money.
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Of course, the American government denies this claim, and if they're lying, it's obvious to understand why.
    see, i don't think the American government "denies this claim" (or some of those other claims) in the manner you're suggesting. also, still going with the "CIA declined to assassinate Lumumba" thing.
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Would it really be a stretch to say that America secretly funded or supported bin Laden (who was admittedly already wealthy at the time) shortly before he created al-Qaeda?
    yes, it would be a stretch to say that, since there's no evidence that the US funded him or that he would have needed/wanted US funding. the thing is, some of your list is stuff that is clearly supported to some extent. this is not the case with the Bin Laden funding thing. and given people's prevalence for leaping into ? 9/11 CONSPIRACIES, i think we should attempt to be clear about this.
  • TB.Boy
    TB.Boy Members Posts: 553 ✭✭✭
    The craziest thing about Americas "Democracy" is that i think though people agree with people like gary johnson or ross perot .They wont vote for them out of fear that between the two popular candidates (Romney or Obama) are the only with a chance.its as if were voting in vain voting for a guy like gary johnson or ross perot. So we vote for the lesser evil between the two popular candidates. Americas political system is all crazy. Im guilty of this myself...
  • Plutarch
    Plutarch Members Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭✭✭
    ^^^ Yeah I can agree with a lot of that. This unofficial two party system is very limiting. Some might even say that it's very un-American since America is about choice. That's the funny/sad thing about America. We're a democratic-republic, yet democracy and republicanism can be at odds. I associate democracy with majority rule and associate republicanism with individualism. You can see the potential conflict when you place "the majority" side-by-side with "the individual." Hold a vote among three people, and two people can vote for one thing and win the vote while the other one person is left being ? out of luck, even if he voted for the right thing.
  • Plutarch
    Plutarch Members Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2012
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    I think Democrats and hopefully Republicans are more concerned like any human with who can articulate their goals better. Weather they reach those goals is a ? shoot. The same that you said would apply to an independent regardless of your views on a party. A party attempts to cover most views under a particular spectrum so a member has a better chance of encompassing the likable values already unless an independent can present something uniquely different. I see many politicians become independent only because they don't get party support yet still do well in their neck of the woods because of likability, but a presidential race is different.

    Yes, I think that this is true. Though I still think that these “likable values” are too much of a limiting factor. And I’m not so sure how far uniqueness and difference can go and still be accepted by a party and its demographics. But it is a fine line, so it’s never really too clear-cut.
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    Democrats have accepted people with conservative values but not vice versa. Both parties have been known to compromise on many issues but there was an agenda vocally expressed by Republicans not to compromise this go round. There has been joint legislation by both parties and a few times party members crossed the isles for a vote. Blue dogs showed themselves to be far more conservative then they claimed on many issues and many wondered if they had any Liberal values, while republicans questioned their conservatism when they did vote blue.

    I think that is a true as well. And it’s such a pity.
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    If you have an R behind your name, then you picked a side in the values arena. I already made the point that they share most values except for a few that obviously aren't enough for them to go it alone. The point of the OP is why not vote third party. Well one has to be a legitimate third party first with majority vote and legislature put forward as a third independent party with no R on your name from jump or at least post a substantial political shift to said party. But i already said parties have gradients which is why Hillary and Obama were in serious opposition for president unlike the buddy fest that was the Republican primaries.

    Ok yes, parties do have gradients and I might agree that most of the Republicans were/are more buddy-buddy than most of the Democrats, but that still doesn’t mean that there aren’t “Republicans”, however few of them, that are very different from the buddy-buddy crowd of Republicans that most Republicans belong to. I still think that, at the very least, these kind of different Republicans (namely the “Libertarians”) are indeed “legitimate” and distinctive third parties.

    Most of these former Republicans who are now independents probably only had that R behind their name because they wanted to attempt to fit into the “two party system”, especially to have a better chance to succeed or showcase themselves. The fact that many of them have failed to even succeed within the Republican family says a lot: 1. There is a large and mainstream kind of Republicanism that is just too powerful for other kinds of Republicans to prosper. 2. These outcast Republicans are truly different from these mainstream Republicans and thus can claim to be legitimate third parties even though they may share some policies and ideals with the mainstream Republicans. When Ron Paul was running for the Republican candidate, everyone saw him as the odd-one-out, even to the point that some thought that he was trying to sabotage the Republican party as a true blue dog. How is it possible for your own party to trust you? Moreover, how is it possible to succeed in said party if nobody trusts you?
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    Weirdo to me is unreachable and downright dangerous goals like eliminating actual departments in government and not replacing them with a sound alternative. Handing over the reigns to private institutions knowing the tickknowledgy that they employ in not following standards at all. Going on a Gold standard which couldn't possibly support our sort of economy or the worlds economy. Killing equal rights amendments. Eliminating regulations and so on and so on. Destroying the FED for no other reason then you think they suck with no reasonable alternatives other then a far more splintered country with varying currency and direct government meddling. Weirdo ? . Obama actually won because he wasn't offering weirdo ? .

    All very fair points, and I’m actually on the same side with you on some of them. The ones that I disagree with you on? Well, we might have to save that debate for another day. I will say however that some independents do offer reasonable alternatives and sound evidence for what they’re trying to do. I think that if you read up on their reasons and plans, some of these policies may sound less weird. But I can see what you’re saying.
  • Plutarch
    Plutarch Members Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2012
    janklow wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Yes, I believe that America funded the Afghans who fought the Soviets. They did not necessarily fund bin Laden/al-Qaeda, especially since al-Qaeda only came about after that war.
    what's more accurate to say is that America funded Pakistan and the ISI then turned around and funded who they liked, and then America gave some stipends to a few other people. none of them, however, were Bin Laden (because that's not how he raised money) or al-Qaeda (for the reason you mention). this is ALSO not to say that this method of funding didn't result in some ? -up characters getting money.

    Yes, that is more accurate. I went back and read up on the matter some more and realized that America most likely didn't directly fund the Afghans. I stand corrected.

    Still seems like a very sloppy and irresponsible system of funding that you wouldn't expect from a major global power like the United States.

    Funny thing is it seems like the war was only really about the United States vs. the Soviet Union, even after the latter pulled out. Just like Vietnam. Seems like everything was Cold War related during those times.
    janklow wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Of course, the American government denies this claim, and if they're lying, it's obvious to understand why.
    see, i don't think the American government "denies this claim" (or some of those other claims) in the manner you're suggesting. also, still going with the "CIA declined to assassinate Lumumba" thing.

    The American government most likely did not fund bin Laden or al-Qaeda. But I was saying that if the opposite was true, then it would only be "practical" for the American government to distance itself from the truth and lie simply because the anger and embarrassment (considering the ironic twist that this would have on 9-11) would be too much. Nevermind the blow that this would've had to the public's faith in their governemnt, I would imagine that the financial consequences would even be quite severe if the families of 9-11 victims had plausible reason to sue the government…Ok, I just reread what you said and realize that I may have misunderstood what you were trying to say. Are you saying that the American government is not denying the claim that they funded bin Laden? I'm not understanding you.

    As for the Lumumba issue, are you saying that CIA didn’t have a hand in his death?
    janklow wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Would it really be a stretch to say that America secretly funded or supported bin Laden (who was admittedly already wealthy at the time) shortly before he created al-Qaeda?
    yes, it would be a stretch to say that, since there's no evidence that the US funded him or that he would have needed/wanted US funding. the thing is, some of your list is stuff that is clearly supported to some extent. this is not the case with the Bin Laden funding thing. and given people's prevalence for leaping into ? 9/11 CONSPIRACIES, i think we should attempt to be clear about this.

    Ok, yeah it would be a stretch because it very likely didn’t happen. But given the very small possibility that it did, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was true. But no evidence and little to no logic for it to happen can and should only lead to the reasonable conclusion that it didn’t happen. Yes, I agree. This kind of clarification is needed.
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Still seems like a very sloppy and irresponsible system of funding that you wouldn't expect from a major global power like the United States.
    the issue, i think, is that if your ally in the region is Pakistan, and their ISI is being shady, do you say "nah, we'll stay out of this" or do you hold your nose and run funding through the ISI? as you point out, it was during the Cold War era, so...

    Funny thing is it seems like the war was only really about the United States vs. the Soviet Union, even after the latter pulled out. Just like Vietnam. Seems like everything was Cold War related during those times.
    janklow wrote: »
    Ok, I just reread what you said and realize that I may have misunderstood what you were trying to say. Are you saying that the American government is not denying the claim that they funded bin Laden? I'm not understanding you.
    i'm saying that the US doesn't deny doing what they actually did (or at least that's my understanding of it) and that it's such a bad idea to debate it as if they HAD funded Bin Laden because, you know, internet.
    janklow wrote: »
    As for the Lumumba issue, are you saying that CIA didn’t have a hand in his death?
    i think i phrased it as "CIA declined to assassinate Lumumba" because i think that's the best way to say it