Who Are All these So-Called Independents?
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
For a while, some years back, it seemed like an awful lot of Republican were fed up or embarrassed by the party that brought us the Iraq war and the Great Recession. Which is to say that a lot of the surge in self-described independents was really Republicans looking for cover. But now it appears that the Dems are rushing to catch up.
In most of the polls I've seen, independents do seem to occupy the middle ground on most issues.
In most of the polls I've seen, independents do seem to occupy the middle ground on most issues.
Not trying to hijack the thread, but exactly what did Republicans do to bring about the 'Great Recession'?
Please don't say tax breaks or Iraq War.
Repeal of Glass Steagall is the primary cause of the Great Recession, and it was a joint effort by the Clinton admnistration and republicans. Ronald Reagan did begin the push for the repeal of this legislation. The fact that there were few big bank failures from 1933 to 1999 seems to back me up on my opinion.
I'm an independent. I've voted for both parties plus a smattering of 3rd party candidates across a variety of elections. Socially, I'm middle to slightly left. Fiscally, I'm middle to slightly right. I don't think either party has all the answers and I think both parties are run too much by the outer-half to the fringe. The Dems, as a collective whole, are way too far left for me and the GOP is, as a collective whole, too far to the right.
In any given election, I usually tend to agree a little with one candidate and a little with the other, depending on the issue. Who I vote for depends on what I think are the most important issues for that particular position to deal with during the upcoming term.
In any given election, I usually tend to agree a little with one candidate and a little with the other, depending on the issue. Who I vote for depends on what I think are the most important issues for that particular position to deal with during the upcoming term.
WTF?
What exactly did Hitler do to start WWII? Please don't say invaded other countries and declared war.
Everybody claims that. Nobody does that. With a few exceptions that are not limited to independents.
That's sort of my point, though. Most independents, it seems, are really Ds or Rs who are fed up with or embarrassed by the parties they have left BUT - and this is the key - still tend to vote the same way and want the same people to win.
Which is to say I don't see how you can appeal to independents with one party.
I find it interesting that so many people express some variation of this. I have yet to hear anyone claim the reverse formula.
I also find it interesting that most of the people who lay claim to this fiscal conservative/social liberal conviction tend to vote for Rs.
Well duh. If you're fiscally conservative, the dems are a total non-starter.
And while (for example) I don't think abortion should be outlawed, it isn't a voting motivator for me as I will never need an abortion.
They are my minions, they are HawktimusPrime spread like an awesome virus of freedom and common sense, to free you all. When talking to people, ol' Prime has learned that independents,..they're everywhere......
The mortgage crisis was more of an instrument of the Clinton administration. WTF indeed. Even Ol' Bush Jr. called for mortgage reform more than a dozen time during his administration. Clinton F'd us hard. I like to be the one doing the f'n by the way.
It is a fact that Freddie and Fannie were big fans of Willy Boy Clinton. It is also a fact, that repubtable Republicans spoke of the dangers of Freddie and Fannie, despite the Dems claims that everything was good.
I think it depends on what your primary motivator for voting is. Plenty of people are social conservatives -- they're against same-sex marriage, they're pro-life, etc. Plenty of people are also fiscally left (whether you want to call it Liberal or Progressive). I've typically been motivated to vote more by fiscal issues than anything else. A few elections I've voted on foreign policy issues and there have only been a couple of times when I've been motivated to vote due, largely, to social issues and those have been more local/state things. If I was in a same-sex relationship and unable to get married or if being pro-choice was a primary motivator, then my perspectives might have been different and several of my votes would have gone the other way.
I do lean right more often than I lean left, but it varies greatly by the race, the issues and the candidates. There are GOPers in play for POTUS right now that I'm pretty sure I would never vote for if they became the nominee. I've gone Dem and 3rd party before, so I could do it again.
Back to your point, though, I simply don't believe that you've ever heard someone declare themselves on the fiscally liberal/progressive side or the socially conservative side. There are millions of people in each bucket who are perfectly open and willing to acknowledge the bucket they're in.
Both parties caused the great recession.
Paul Krugman called for a housing bubble that was created by Alan Greenspan and others.
Paul Krugman called for a housing bubble that was created by Alan Greenspan and others.
Dead on : Both parties caused the great recession.
Paul Krugman called for a housing bubble that was created by Alan Greenspan and others.
DEAD ON CUT AND PASTE QUEEN!!
Paul Krugman called for a housing bubble that was created by Alan Greenspan and others.
DEAD ON CUT AND PASTE QUEEN!!
That's because when people say they are socially liberal that usually means they aren't uptight about sex. But it doesn't translate into actual liberal social policy because liberal social policy is all about equality of opportunity, and that means redistribution.
Actually he's not wrong and I've detailed it already Ciggy. Your party supported the Mortgage crisis, by showing unwavering support to Freddie and Fannie, despite even GW Jr. of all people calling for a change.
Then you throw in the wars, and there you have it. Though, the national debt had nothing to do with the criminal like behavior of Freddie and Fannie,...so there is that.
Copy and paste all you want, but i'll shred you like cheese regardless on this issue. The warnings were there, but EVERYONE failed to either heed them or take action.
Your stubborn nature needs to die Ciggy, because you are absolutely useless to anyone with it.
True enough. Lots of people who are one or the other. But, I can't recall anyone being both of those. Probably are a few, but pretty rare.
Here's another oddity about these phrasings. When people say" socially liberal" these days they tend to mean liberal toward gay rights, pot smoking, and such. But they do not mean liberal on other major social issues like welfare, entitlements, or education. How did "liberal" in "social liberal" get co-opted to mean "libertarian"?
I must cut and paste I must find articles! I must win without using my own thoughts and words! (Ciggy rushing to find cut and paste articles on google at this moment)
His cut and paste skills aren't as quick as mine,....he's already lost the debate. Feel free to add more to your argument on the thread I started.
I disagree with this. Redistribution is a "fiscal" issue because you're requiring the government to take money from the rich and redistribute to the poor. The government will have to be fiscally competent in order to do this and not go broke in the process.
To me, socially liberal issues are about more than just sex, gays, and abortion. It's also about drug policy, criminal justice, etc.
"Equality" is a mirage. You can never mandate nor achieve equality. The best you can do is ensure equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.
Sure it did. He asked a question, but then ruled out 2 of the 3 legitimate answers to that question.
It's like asking someone who isn't adopted or a stepchild "who are your parents, but don't say your mom and dad?" Or "what's 2+2, but don't tell me 4." Or "who won the 2012 presidential election, but don't say Obama."
What would your response be to someone who asked a question and then ruled out most of the correct answers?
.
if you see criminal justice as a social policy, why not education and health? Traditionally social policies are policies aimed at achieving equality of opportunity. Splitting off components that cost money is exactly why it doesn't often mean anything when people call themselves socially liberal. They are actually more libertarian about matters to do with individual adult fun, but not very liberal at all.
Simply wrong.
You have picked a single "cause" and have completely swallowed the right-wing framing of that cause.
Your assessment is only a baby step better than that of those who used to blame it entirely on Barney Frank.
Sure, the housing bubble was an important sub-element of 1 of the 3 factors that gave us the Great Recession. But it was only part of the deregulation factor. The other 2 factors being the war and the tax cuts.
You couldn't be more wrong with this post and I'm delightful for it.
I have not picked a single cause, and I've used facts, even admitted by the Dems.
My assessment is dead on, and you're reaching here.
My assessment that all were to blame, and Clinton was in fact partly responsible. So once again, I am correct.
Next?
Education is not about achieving equality of opportunity. It should be about preparing someone for a career for which they possess the required competencies.
I see a difference between public health initiatives and individual healthcare. I believe people should have some skin in the game, and pay for the healthcare they consume.
