63 Percent Of Independents Don’t Care About Trump’s ‘Locker Room’ Comments

[Professor Peabody]

63 Percent Of Independents Don’t Care About Trump’s ‘Locker Room’ Comments

Phillip Stucky | 11:00 AM 10/10/2016

Voters aren’t concerned about Republican nominee Donald Trump’s comments during a 2005 interview about women, according to a national NBC/Surveymonkey poll published Monday morning.

A strong majority of 63 percent of Independent voters reported that Trump’s comments make no difference in their decision about who to support in November, compared to only 33 percent of Democrats, and 81 percent of Republicans.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/10/63-percent-of-independents-dont-care-about-trumps-locker-room-comments/

The internal polling for Hillary must be a train wreck. The keep trying to make an issue out of a non-issue. No minutia is too small to feed into the snow thrower of smear and see what sticks to the wall. The lame stream media like dutiful lap dogs hypes it ad nauseam. What bothers me is the Republican party bends over for each and every asinine attempt like spineless worms. They simply can't learn from those around them. When all the Wikileaks eMails came out showing Hillary is Pro Wall St to the extent she wants the CEO's to regulate themselves! Did the Republicans jump on that juicy story and make an issue out of it.....NO! Is it any wonder why Trump is so popular?

[exploited]

Independents are a mythical creature. They are said to exist, and yet everytime you see one, you realize they have voted consistently for one of the major parties for decades.

[Cigar]

The internal polling for Hillary must be a train wreck. The keep trying to make an issue out of a non-issue. No minutia is too small to feed into the snow thrower of smear and see what sticks to the wall. The lame stream media like dutiful lap dogs hypes it ad nauseam. What bothers me is the Republican party bends over for each and every asinine attempt like spineless worms. They simply can't learn from those around them. When all the Wikileaks eMails came out showing Hillary is Pro Wall St to the extent she wants the CEO's to regulate themselves! Did the Republicans jump on that juicy story and make an issue out of it.....NO! Is it any wonder why Trump is so popular?


Really ... ? A couple Questions, how many are Women, and when can I grab them? :laugh:

[Bo-4]

You should probably read the actual poll as opposed to Little Tucker Carlson's SPIN on the poll. ;-)

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/data-points/poll-more-voters-say-trump-doesn-t-respect-women-after-n663296

[Professor Peabody]

Really ... ? A couple Questions, how many are Women, and when can I grab them? :laugh:

Go down to the city park after dark and have a ball.

[Peter1469]

Independents are a mythical creature. They are said to exist, and yet everytime you see one, you realize they have voted consistently for one of the major parties for decades.

False

[stjames1_53]

The internal polling for Hillary must be a train wreck. The keep trying to make an issue out of a non-issue. No minutia is too small to feed into the snow thrower of smear and see what sticks to the wall. The lame stream media like dutiful lap dogs hypes it ad nauseam. What bothers me is the Republican party bends over for each and every asinine attempt like spineless worms. They simply can't learn from those around them. When all the Wikileaks eMails came out showing Hillary is Pro Wall St to the extent she wants the CEO's to regulate themselves! Did the Republicans jump on that juicy story and make an issue out of it.....NO! Is it any wonder why Trump is so popular?

the complaint is coming from a camp that believes that any sex is good sex, with anyone you want to chose.............and they're going to bitch about someone being liberal with their comments???????????????

[exotix]

How many independents comprise the whopping 35% of Trump support ... LOL

[exploited]

False

Nope. It's not. This is a well-known problem with polls that rely on self-identifying respondents.

[Green Arrow]

If you asked me if it mattered as to who I was voting for, I'd say no too, but only because I decided once Sanders lost the primary race to Clinton exactly who I was voting for: Jill Stein.

That doesn't mean I don't care about the fact that Trump is a disgusting pig. The two questions are totally separate.

[Chris]

Independents are a mythical creature. They are said to exist, and yet everytime you see one, you realize they have voted consistently for one of the major parties for decades.

I'm independent. I have voted, when I voted, for Dems, Reps, and Libertarians. The US Representative for this district is a long time Dem who is well liked and I support. I haven't voted Libertarian nationally since Badnarik.

As to the topic, yes, better he not talk like that, but it's not high up there on my list of priorities to care much about.

[Ravens Fan]

Independents are a mythical creature. They are said to exist, and yet everytime you see one, you realize they have voted consistently for one of the major parties for decades.

I am an Independent. You are wrong.

[Bo-4]

the complaint is coming from a camp that believes that any sex is good sex, with anyone you want to chose.............and they're going to bitch about someone being liberal with their comments???????????????

NOBODY believes that "any sex is good sex"

Serious?

[Bo-4]

If you asked me if it mattered as to who I was voting for, I'd say no too, but only because I decided once Sanders lost the primary race to Clinton exactly who I was voting for: Jill Stein.

That doesn't mean I don't care about the fact that Trump is a disgusting pig. The two questions are totally separate.

I just voted for Jill on a mail-in. Had planned on posting a picture to prove it to the unbelievers ..

But there was no way to take a picture that didn't include bar (and other) codes that might have personally identified me to my frenemies. ;-)

[Crepitus]

You should probably read the actual poll as opposed to Little Tucker Carlson's SPIN on the poll. ;-)

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/data-points/poll-more-voters-say-trump-doesn-t-respect-women-after-n663296

Busted!

[Crepitus]

I am an Independent. You are wrong.

Like you don't vote for the conservative 9 times out of 10.

[Ravens Fan]

Like you don't vote for the conservative 9 times out of 10.

Nope.

[Cigar]

The internal polling for Hillary must be a train wreck. The keep trying to make an issue out of a non-issue. No minutia is too small to feed into the snow thrower of smear and see what sticks to the wall. The lame stream media like dutiful lap dogs hypes it ad nauseam. What bothers me is the Republican party bends over for each and every asinine attempt like spineless worms. They simply can't learn from those around them. When all the Wikileaks eMails came out showing Hillary is Pro Wall St to the extent she wants the CEO's to regulate themselves! Did the Republicans jump on that juicy story and make an issue out of it.....NO! Is it any wonder why Trump is so popular?

Unless it's Bill Clinton's Locker Room

[exploited]

I am an Independent. You are wrong.

Yeah? Who'd you vote for in the last four Presidential elections?

[exploited]

I'm independent. I have voted, when I voted, for Dems, Reps, and Libertarians. The US Representative for this district is a long time Dem who is well liked and I support. I haven't voted Libertarian nationally since Badnarik.

As to the topic, yes, better he not talk like that, but it's not high up there on my list of priorities to care much about.

Of the last four Presidential elections, who did you vote for?

[Crepitus]

Nope.
I am surprised, but if you say so I see no reason not to believe you.

I am registered independent but in all honesty I do vote Democrat most of the time.

[The Xl]

Why would they? It's tame compared to what the Clintons have done anyway. The media is illegitimate and doesn't have the integrity to point any of that out though.

[Chris]

of the last four presidential elections, who did you vote for?

Last voted for Badnarik, but I already said that.

[exploited]

Last voted for Badnarik, but I already said that.

Okay, so when it comes to talking about independents and Presidential elections, you don't really qualify because you don't vote in Presidential elections. Note here the difference between saying "I haven't voted Libertarian nationally since Badnarik" and "I don't vote nationally."

[Ravens Fan]

Yeah? Who'd you vote for in the last four Presidential elections?

Johnson, McCain, Bush, Gore, Clinton

I vote independent every chance I get locally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ravens Fan]

I am surprised, but if you say so I see no reason not to believe you.

I am registered independent but in all honesty I do vote Democrat most of the time.

I don't consider being independent as a party in itself. I simply do not identify with either of the major parties. I align the most with libertarians, but not enough to take that label. I also do not base my beliefs on any party line, but my own conscience and understanding of the constitution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chris]

Okay, so when it comes to talking about independents and Presidential elections, you don't really qualify because you don't vote in Presidential elections. Note here the difference between saying "I haven't voted Libertarian nationally since Badnarik" and "I don't vote nationally."

Right, if you were some sort of judge about anything at all I'd be so very concerned about your opinion. Keep fooling yourself.

[Chris]

I don't consider being independent as a party in itself. I simply do not identify with either of the major parties. I align the most with libertarians, but not enough to take that label. I also do not base my beliefs on any party line, but my own conscience and understanding of the constitution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some people have trouble distinguishing Independent from independent.

[Chris]

Common definition:


An independent voter, often called an unaffiliated voter in the United States, is a voter who does not align themselves with a political party. An independent is variously defined as a voter who votes for candidates and issues rather than on the basis of a political ideology or partisanship;[1] a voter who does not have long-standing loyalty to, or identification with, a political party;[2][3] a voter who does not usually vote for the same political party from election to election;[4][5] or a voter who self-describes as an independent.[6]

@ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_voter

[Green Arrow]

Right, if you were some sort of judge about anything at all I'd be so very concerned about your opinion. Keep fooling yourself.

Why is the bad attitude necessary? He's being civil.

[Green Arrow]

I'm an independent, btw.

[Chris]

Why is the bad attitude necessary? He's being civil.

He is? Civility would mean replying to what people post, not dismissing it for something else only to argue against that. It's not any discourse ethics I'm familiar with. You talk to him you like his approach.

[del]

tissue?

[Chris]

tissue?

No, don't have one. Suck it up.

[Green Arrow]

He is? Civility would mean replying to what people post, not dismissing it for something else only to argue against that. It's not any discourse ethics I'm familiar with. You talk to him you like his approach.

Yes, he is. He didn't insult you, or even write in a nasty tone. He simply questioned a claim you made in a civil tone.

[Professor Peabody]

Unless it's Bill Clinton's Locker Room

You mean the Lincoln Bedroom don't you?

[del]

No, don't have one. Suck it up.

take your own advice, snowflake.

:biglaugh:

[exploited]

I appreciate your defense, Green Arrow. Thank you.

In regards to independent voters, what the research shows is that the vast bulk of people who consider themselves "independent" are not really independent; instead, they vote consistently along party lines, and often according to a particular ideology.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/11/independents-outnumber-democrats-and-republicans-but-theyre-not-very-independent/


If you were to pick a random American off of the street, it's more likely that he or she would identify as an independent than as a Democrat or a Republican. That's been the case for a while now, of course, so the new numbers from Gallup breaking down the country's partisanship aren't, by themselves, earth-shattering.

In Gallup's most recent analysis, 42 percent of Americans identify as independent, compared with 29 percent who say they are Democrats and 26 percent who say they are Republicans.

...

What's interesting is when you break out those independents. As we noted in August, most independents lean toward one party or the other — and in 2012, the majority of those leaning independents voted for their preferred party's presidential candidate. (According to the book "The Gamble," 90 percent of Democratic-leaning independents backed Obama in 2012, and 78 percent of Republican-leaning ones backed Romney.)

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/10814522/independents-voters-facts-myths


...

Independents, political scientists argue, are nothing more than partisans who don’t want to admit that they are partisans. Despite decades of surveys, political science articles and books that reach this very point, the media often trumpet independents as voters untainted by partisan bias, unattached and poised to change the course of history by voting for the candidate that makes the best case during the campaign. This type of coverage is frustrating for many academics.

...

The number of people who tell pollsters they are independent has been steadily increasing over nearly a century. Today they represent the largest proportion of the electorate. Gallup reports that in 2015, roughly 42 percent of people said that they are "independent" when asked a question about their party. Compare that with either Democrats (29 percent) or Republicans (26 percent).


Still, the difficulty in classifying who is and is not independent also makes it difficult to estimate how many people in America are actually independent. If we can’t count independents who lean toward a party as actual independents, then our count should only include people who report that they do not lean toward either party.


The very same Gallup data that demonstrates that 42 percent of people call themselves independents, for example, shows that only 13 percent of people are independents who don’t lean toward either party. By this definition, independents are a political minority, and while their numbers have increased over the past decade the increase has been very slight.

http://cookpolitical.com/story/6608


More important, however, is the misconception that these voters are embracing an "independent " status because they want their party to pursue a more moderate agenda, or to move to the middle instead of catering to the extreme. In fact, there is evidence that they are abandoning their party labels for the exact opposite reason: they see the party as moving too far from its core values.


A recent paper for the University of Chicago's Harris School of Public Policy by Kimberley Norman and Zachary Zundel, found that "the majority of Independent voters have political opinions that align with one of the two major parties at least as well as party members." In fact, they write, "independents who "leaned" toward one party or the other actually had stronger alignment than those who identified as "not very strong" in the same party. Additionally, their results were far more similar with those who identified themselves as being "strong" in their party."

In other words, those who call themselves "independent" may actually be closer to the views of the core GOP or core Democratic policy positions than even those who identify themselves as a party member.

[Green Arrow]

I appreciate your defense, Green Arrow. Thank you.

In regards to independent voters, what the research shows is that the vast bulk of people who consider themselves "independent" are not really independent; instead, they vote consistently along party lines, and often according to a particular ideology.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/11/independents-outnumber-democrats-and-republicans-but-theyre-not-very-independent/



http://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/10814522/independents-voters-facts-myths



http://cookpolitical.com/story/6608

I don't disagree with the assessment. I know a lot of people that call themselves independents but consistently vote straight ticket one party. They may vote against their party once in a blue moon, but they can still be counted on 99% of the time to vote just one party.

I can usually tell who the real independents are by telling them how I vote. If they express dismay that I vote literally every party on the ballot then they likely aren't independents.

[Cletus]

An Independent will vote for the candidate who most closely shares his ideas of what is best for the country. If the candidate more often than not comes from one specific party, that does not make him any less an Independent.

I realize that is perhaps a bit too complicated for some of the posters here to understand, but it is the way it is.

[Ethereal]

Why is the bad attitude necessary? He's being civil.

It's just an act. We know all about that...

[Peter1469]

Vote for grid lock. That is the best thing for America.

[exploited]

An Independent will vote for the candidate who most closely shares his ideas of what is best for the country. If the candidate more often than not comes from one specific party, that does not make him any less an Independent.

I realize that is perhaps a bit too complicated for some of the posters here to understand, but it is the way it is.

Would you consider yourself an independent?

[Cletus]

Would you consider yourself an independent?

I am. I vote for candidates, not parties.

[AZ Jim]

If you bother to read the OP's link you will also see this:"Thirty-one percent of Independents also reported that they were less likely to vote for the Republican nominee for president, compared to only 3 percent who reported the comments made them more likely to vote for Trump."

[exploited]

I am. I vote for candidates, not parties.

Thank you for proving my point.

[Cletus]

Thank you for proving my point.

You had a point?

[exploited]

You had a point?

Yes. The point is that you are one of the most vitriolic and hateful conservatives on this board, who has probably voted Republican for forty years, with the rare moderate Democrat thrown in, and you consider yourself an "independent."

[Peter1469]

Wow. If he was hatful he would vote straight hard left.

[exploited]

Wow. If he was hatful he would vote straight hard left.

Impossible. There are very few hard left candidates in the US, other then the Communist Party, of course.

[Cletus]

Yes. The point is that you are one of the most vitriolic and hateful conservatives on this board, who has probably voted Republican for forty years, with the rare moderate Democrat thrown in, and you consider yourself an "independent."

Here is what your pathetic little Liberal collection of ganglia doesn't seem able to grasp. I owe no allegiance to any political party. I don't care whether a candidate is Democrat or Republican or Libertarian or anything else. I will always vote for the candidate who comes closest to sharing my views on what is best for this nation.

More often than not, that candidate is not a Democrat, but I would never not vote for someone because he or she is Democrat or Republican or whatever.

I am an independent voter who evaluates each candidate on the ballot independent of party affiliation. If I agree with a candidates views more than I do his opponent's views, that candidate will get my vote.

I know that is a lot for you to try to absorb, but read it three or four times and if you still don't get it, ask someone to explain it to you.

[Peter1469]

Impossible. There are very few hard left candidates in the US, other then the Communist Party, of course.


The establishment (D) and (R) are hard left. Statists.

Americans don't need government to live their lives.

[exploited]

Here is what your pathetic little Liberal collection of ganglia doesn't seem able to grasp. I owe no allegiance to any political party. I don't care whether a candidate is Democrat or Republican or Libertarian or anything else. I will always vote for the candidate who comes closest to sharing my views on what is best for this nation.

More often than not, that candidate is not a Democrat, but I would never not vote for someone because he or she is Democrat or Republican or whatever.

I am an independent voter who evaluates each candidate on the ballot independent of party affiliation. If I agree with a candidates views more than I do his opponent's views, that candidate will get my vote.

I know that is a lot for you to try to absorb, but read it three or four times and if you still don't get it, ask someone to explain it to you.

Oh, I get it. You vote Republican but only because Republican candidates support your values. Which is different from those who aren't independent, who vote for their party because that party support their values.

[exploited]

The establishment (D) and (R) are hard left. Statists.

Americans don't need government to live their lives.

Hard right is also statist, you understand that right?

In reality, the left-right dichotomy is false. You can measure most political opinions by putting them on two axis: authoritarian v. libertarian, and conservative v. liberal.

[Peter1469]

Hard right is also statist, you understand that right?

In reality, the left-right dichotomy is false. You can measure most political opinions by putting them on two axis: authoritarian v. libertarian, and conservative v. liberal.

R = zero government

L = total government

Move from right to left adding government as you go

[exploited]

R = zero government

L = total government

Move from right to left adding government as you go

That is a unique and historically unfounded view of left v. right. Hard left has typically referred to communists, and hard right has typically referred to fascists.

From Wikipedia:


Amongst researchers, there is a general consensus that the Left includes anarchists,[9] communists, socialists, anti-capitalists, anti-imperialists, greens, left-libertarians, progressives, social democrats and social liberals.[10][11][12] Movements for racial equality are also usually linked with left-wing organizations.[13]

Researchers have also said that the Right includes classical liberals, capitalists, anti-communists, conservatives, neoconservatives, neoliberals, right-libertarians, nationalists, imperialists, monarchists, fascists,[14] racial supremicists,[15] reactionaries, religious fundamentalists, social authoritarians and traditionalists.[16]

You'll note that both left and right have elements that reject State control. This is because the left-right dichotomy is false, and has no bearing on reality whatsoever.

[Cletus]

Oh, I get it. You vote Republican but only because Republican candidates support your values. Which is different from those who aren't independent, who vote for their party because that party support their values.

I don't vote "Republican", Dipstick.

I vote for a candidate. If he is a Republican, so be it. That is incidental.

[exploited]

I don't vote "Republican", Dipstick.

I vote for a candidate. If he is a Republican, so be it. That is incidental.

Uh huh.

How many Democrats have you voted for? Be specific.

[Peter1469]

That is a unique and historically unfounded view of left v. right. Hard left has typically referred to communists, and hard right has typically referred to fascists.

From Wikipedia:

Right. History places left v right based on how the French government sat several centuries ago. The sheep today just go along with it without a single thought. I tell them a better model, and they chew their cud.

[exploited]

Right. History places left v right based on how the French government sat several centuries ago. The sheep today just go along with it without a single thought. I tell them a better model, and they chew their cud.

Well, the issue is that you are continuing to propagate the left-right model, when that really doesn't describe anything. For instance, I believe in drastically reducing the role of the state in many issues. On the authoritarian-libertarian scale, I lean heavily towards libertarian. On the other hand, on the liberal-conservative scale, I lean heavily liberal. What this means on a policy level is that I am a firm supporter of classical rights, but I also believe in certain positive rights, such as healthcare and environmental protection.

When it comes to the left-right scale, this would place me firmly on the left. However, if you were to look at the totality of my beliefs, you would find that I am very closely aligned with classical liberals when it comes to the fundamentals, and by your definition, classical liberals would lean right.

[Cletus]

Uh huh.

How many Democrats have you voted for? Be specific.

I honestly don't know. I know there were several in the last election. I did vote for the Republican candidate for President.

You really cannot comprehend that someone can be more interested in a candidate than the party to which he aligns himself.

How sad for you.

[AZ Jim]

I honestly don't know. I know there were several in the last election. I did vote for the Republican candidate for President.

You really cannot comprehend that someone can be more interested in a candidate than the party to which he aligns himself.

How sad for you.Nice try, not convincing.

[exploited]

I honestly don't know. I know there were several in the last election. I did vote for the Republican candidate for President.

You really cannot comprehend that someone can be more interested in a candidate than the party to which he aligns himself.

How sad for you.

I can comprehend that. What I am doubting is the "independent" label. I am willing to bet that, absent you disliking something personal about a Republican candidate (such as the cut of their jib), you would vote Republican at least 80% of the time, and probably closer to 90%.

And if that is the case, you would have to admit that somebody like TrueBlue is an independent, solely because they apply the same criteria as you do ("candidate, not party").

[Cletus]

What you doubt is of no importance. And again, you make it clear that you are incapable of understanding that someone could easily vote for candidates of a particular party 90% of the time and still be independent, as long as he is voting for those candidates because of their positions on the issues and not their party affiliation.

[exploited]

What you doubt is of no importance. And again, you make it clear that you are incapable of understanding that someone could easily vote for candidates of a particular party 90% of the time and still be independent, as long as he is voting for those candidates because of their positions on the issues and not their party affiliation.

So you agree that a person like TrueBlue is an independent, if they vote against a Democrat they view as not representative of their views?

[Cletus]

So you agree that a person like TrueBlue is an independent, if they vote against a Democrat they view as not representative of their views?

I don't know what the fuck TrueBlue is.

[exploited]

I don't know what the $#@! TrueBlue is.

Well, if he has voted against a Democrat because he thinks they aren't representing his views, it follows that he is an independent... at least according to your logic.

Strangely enough, you're also an independent! Huh.

[Cletus]

Well, if he has voted against a Democrat because he thinks they aren't representing his views, it follows that he is an independent... at least according to your logic.

Strangely enough, you're also an independent! Huh.

Are you sure it is a "he"?

You really do not get how this whole "independent" thing works. I believe that TrueBlue has on numerous occasions expressed support for the Democrat PARTY, not just Democrat candidates.

[Ravens Fan]

Why is the bad attitude necessary? He's being civil.

It probably has something to do with Exploited's track record here. One who admits lying in order to win debates and then continuously calls other posters liars, deserves no sympathy for the reactions they get, IMO.

[Peter1469]

Well, the issue is that you are continuing to propagate the left-right model, when that really doesn't describe anything. For instance, I believe in drastically reducing the role of the state in many issues. On the authoritarian-libertarian scale, I lean heavily towards libertarian. On the other hand, on the liberal-conservative scale, I lean heavily liberal. What this means on a policy level is that I am a firm supporter of classical rights, but I also believe in certain positive rights, such as healthcare and environmental protection.

When it comes to the left-right scale, this would place me firmly on the left. However, if you were to look at the totality of my beliefs, you would find that I am very closely aligned with classical liberals when it comes to the fundamentals, and by your definition, classical liberals would lean right.

There are better models overall. The Nolan chart that Chris uses works. Have you gotten added to it yet?

But for simplicity in a discussion the 2 dimensional model works better. Everyone knows the French model- those that support the king (tradition) are on the right.

My model makes more sense. Use whichever you like. Just know my model so you understand my statements.

[Peter1469]

I honestly don't know. I know there were several in the last election. I did vote for the Republican candidate for President.

You really cannot comprehend that someone can be more interested in a candidate than the party to which he aligns himself.

How sad for you.

I not only voted but campaigned for Edwin Edwards for Governor of Louisiana when David Duke was running against him. Our slogan was "vote for the crook. It's important."

[Peter1469]

Nice try, not convincing.
Funny, coming from a Trump.

[donttread]

Independents are a mythical creature. They are said to exist, and yet everytime you see one, you realize they have voted consistently for one of the major parties for decades.

Yup, just sheep who think they're independent.

[Chris]

Yes, he is. He didn't insult you, or even write in a nasty tone. He simply questioned a claim you made in a civil tone.

No, he's not. No point arguing. Mind your your own tone.

[Chris]

I appreciate your defense, Green Arrow. Thank you.

In regards to independent voters, what the research shows is that the vast bulk of people who consider themselves "independent" are not really independent; instead, they vote consistently along party lines, and often according to a particular ideology.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/11/independents-outnumber-democrats-and-republicans-but-theyre-not-very-independent/



http://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/10814522/independents-voters-facts-myths



http://cookpolitical.com/story/6608



Problem is you asked real people who don't fit your abstract statistics. If you didn't want real people to respond, don't ask.

[Chris]

I am. I vote for candidates, not parties.

That doesn't count though. You don't fit his statistical abstraction. The abstraction is more real than you are. Get it? :P

[exploited]

Yes, I am also an independent. The same with TrueBlue, and Ethereal, and Peter, and Cigar, and basically everyone here. Good point Chris.

[del]

Right. History places left v right based on how the French government sat several centuries ago. The sheep today just go along with it without a single thought. I tell them a better model, and they chew their cud.

there's nothing sadder than brilliance unrealized by the masses, is there?

[Chris]

Yes, I am also an independent. The same with TrueBlue, and Ethereal, and Peter, and Cigar, and basically everyone here. Good point Chris.

Some real people don't fit your statistical abstraction.

[del]

some real people are asshats

[exploited]

Some real people don't fit your statistical abstraction.

Are we pretending that the statistics don't account and allow for true independents? Is that what is going on here?

Did you even read what was posted?

[Chris]

Are we pretending that the statistics don't account and allow for true independents? Is that what is going on here?

Did you even read what was posted?

Are we pretending that statistical abstractions tell us about individuals?

Yes, I read your rejection of several members saying they are independent, simply because you prefer abstractions. Sorry your gotcha failed.

[Cigar]

The internal polling for Hillary must be a train wreck. The keep trying to make an issue out of a non-issue. No minutia is too small to feed into the snow thrower of smear and see what sticks to the wall. The lame stream media like dutiful lap dogs hypes it ad nauseam. What bothers me is the Republican party bends over for each and every asinine attempt like spineless worms. They simply can't learn from those around them. When all the Wikileaks eMails came out showing Hillary is Pro Wall St to the extent she wants the CEO's to regulate themselves! Did the Republicans jump on that juicy story and make an issue out of it.....NO! Is it any wonder why Trump is so popular?

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kA54Hk610Tc/V_wp9aJrxYI/AAAAAAABg18/vxOByyN4RCUtD9Sg8EYqR1B05Pfw-tYeACLcB/s640/it%2527s%2Bsexual%2Bassault.jpg

[exploited]

Are we pretending that statistical abstractions tell us about individuals?

Yes, I read your rejection of several members saying they are independent, simply because you prefer abstractions. Sorry your gotcha failed.

I rejected them? Weird, I thought I was just asking a question. I can see how this is confusing to you though.

[Chris]

This is similar to arguments over income gaps. Liberals like to point to statistical abstractions that show a widening gap in incomes. But as Thomas Sowell points out individuals dynamically move up and down from the abstract incomes classes. The abstractions aren't all that meaningful.

[Chris]

I rejected them? Weird, I thought I was just asking a question. I can see how this is confusing to you though.

Yes, you asked, we answered, and you rejected answers to argue your abstraction.

Here is one such case:


Independents are a mythical creature. They are said to exist, and yet everytime you see one, you realize they have voted consistently for one of the major parties for decades.


I'm independent. I have voted, when I voted, for Dems, Reps, and Libertarians. The US Representative for this district is a long time Dem who is well liked and I support. I haven't voted Libertarian nationally since Badnarik.

As to the topic, yes, better he not talk like that, but it's not high up there on my list of priorities to care much about.


Of the last four Presidential elections, who did you vote for?


Last voted for Badnarik, but I already said that.


Okay, so when it comes to talking about independents and Presidential elections, you don't really qualify because you don't vote in Presidential elections. Note here the difference between saying "I haven't voted Libertarian nationally since Badnarik" and "I don't vote nationally."


No one is confused much as you want to try and make this personal.

[exploited]

This is similar to arguments over income gaps. Liberals like to point to statistical abstractions that show a widening gap in incomes. But as Thomas Sowell points out individuals dynamically move up and down from the abstract incomes classes. The abstractions aren't all that meaningful.

I distinctly remembering demolishing that argument, but of course you pretended that it never happened, while refusing to rebut my points.

Of course individuals make more as they get older. That is how careers work - you get an entry level job, and as you accumulate experience and achievements, you make more money. However the facts show that, on average, an individual will belong to the same economic class as their parents throughout their life. For instance, my parents are upper middle class. When I started working, I made minimum wage, just like they did when they started working. But now that I'm 30, I am making a solid upper middle class income - just like they did when they were 30. This holds true for the vast majority of people, and is referred to as intergenerational economic mobility.

But please, don't let statistics stand in the way of your ideological point of view. Carry on.


Yes, you asked, we answered, and you rejected answers to argue your abstraction.

Not true at all. Roughly 10% of the population can be considered independent, rather than the 45% who make that claim and then vote along party lines 95% of the time. As for you, I never "rejected" that you were an independent - all I pointed out is that you don't vote in Presidential elections, and so the claim of being independent or not cannot be tested based on your voting record, which doesn't really exist.

[Chris]

I distinctly remembering demolishing that argument, but of course you pretended that it never happened, while refusing to rebut my points.

Of course individuals make more as they get older. That is how careers work - you get an entry level job, and as you accumulate experience and achievements, you make more money. However the facts show that, on average, an individual will belong to the same economic class as their parents throughout their life. For instance, my parents are upper middle class. When I started working, I made minimum wage, just like they did when they started working. But now that I'm 30, I am making a solid upper middle class income - just like they did when they were 30. This holds true for the vast majority of people, and is referred to as intergenerational economic mobility.

But please, don't let statistics stand in the way of your ideological point of view. Carry on.



Not true at all. Roughly 10% of the population can be considered independent, rather than the 45% who make that claim and then vote along party lines 95% of the time. As for you, I never "rejected" that you were an independent - all I pointed out is that you don't vote in Presidential elections, and so the claim of being independent or not cannot be tested based on your voting record, which doesn't really exist.



Demolishing? LOL, when you change from player to referee you forfeit the game. IOW, your judgment here is obviously biased.

I rebutted your point simply by pointing out that abstractions do not capture individuals. It is you who has not countered that.

Instead you get personal with insults. Pathetic.



Roughly 10% of the population can be considered independent....

Thank you for supporting my argument. Even your statistical abstractions say there are independents. By coming down from your early extreme absolute position, you just refuted it.

Now you understand my point.

[JDubya]

the complaint is coming from a camp that believes that any sex is good sex, with anyone you want to chose.............and they're going to bitch about someone being liberal with their comments???????????????

You seem to be unclear on the difference between consensual sex between consenting adults and unwanted, uninvited, non-consensual groping, then boasting about it.

[Adelaide]

some real people are asshats

Please do not insult other members.

[exploited]

Demolishing? LOL, when you change from player to referee you forfeit the game. IOW, your judgment here is obviously biased.

I rebutted your point simply by pointing out that abstractions do not capture individuals. It is you who has not countered that.

Instead you get personal with insults. Pathetic.




Thank you for supporting my argument. Even your statistical abstractions say there are independents. By coming down from your early extreme absolute position, you just refuted it.

Now you understand my point.

My extreme absolute position? I can't help that you don't have a sense of humour and interpreted mythical creatures literally.

[Chris]

My extreme absolute position? I can't help that you don't have a sense of humour and interpreted mythical creatures literally.


You see no humorous irony in citing abstractions to support your claim independents are mythical?

Sense of humor? You go for the personal again. Pathetic.

[exploited]

You see no humorous irony in citing abstractions to support your claim independents are mythical?

Sense of humor? You go for the personal again. Pathetic.

Yeah, it is clear you don't have a sense of humour. Nothing wrong with that, some people just can't comprehend that saying an independent is a "mythical creature" is quite clearly not a serious, intended-to-be-interpreted-literally statement. You understand that I don't think independents are actually unicorns, right?

You'll note that when I talked about those various "abstractions," this is what I said: "In regards to independent voters, what the research shows is that the vast bulk of people who consider themselves "independent" are not really independent; instead, they vote consistently along party lines, and often according to a particular ideology."

[Peter1469]

there's nothing sadder than brilliance unrealized by the masses, is there?

I wouldn't know. I don't care enough to think about it.

[Chris]

Yeah, it is clear you don't have a sense of humour. Nothing wrong with that, some people just can't comprehend that saying an independent is a "mythical creature" is quite clearly not a serious, intended-to-be-interpreted-literally statement. You understand that I don't think independents are actually unicorns, right?

You'll note that when I talked about those various "abstractions," this is what I said: "In regards to independent voters, what the research shows is that the vast bulk of people who consider themselves "independent" are not really independent; instead, they vote consistently along party lines, and often according to a particular ideology."


Topic is not about me, ex. Sense of humor. Comprehension. Pathetic the way you keep trying to make it so.

So what are you saying here in this post otherwise? Yes, admitting some independents don't fit your statistical abstraction. Thanks. There are several of us who responded to you that don't fit your absolutes. That was my point. Why go in circles about it?

[Peter1469]

Statistics don't work at the individual level....

[exploited]

Topic is not about me, ex. Sense of humor. Comprehension. Pathetic the way you keep trying to make it so.

So what are you saying here in this post otherwise? Yes, admitting some independents don't fit your statistical abstraction. Thanks. There are several of us who responded to you that don't fit your absolutes. That was my point. Why go in circles about it?

Yes, roughly 10% of American society is independent, and the vast bulk of people who claim to be independent are not independents. I agree that I was right all along. Thanks for coming out.

[Peter1469]

Yes, roughly 10% of American society is independent, and the vast bulk of people who claim to be independent are not independents. I agree that I was right all along. Thanks for coming out.

It is approaching 30% now.

[exploited]

It is approaching 30% now.

Do you have any sort of reputable source for that claim, or are you just wagering a guess?

[Peter1469]

Do you have any sort of reputable source for that claim, or are you just wagering a guess?

I just pay attention (http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx).

[exploited]

I just pay attention (http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx).

This has already been addressed. Most people think they are an independent, and then vote solid Republican or solid Democrat, with the occasional hiccup, for their entire lives.

It is a bit like polling people about their positive attributes. Everyone is going to say that they are open-minded, everyone is going to say that they aren't racist, etc. It is a very common problem with polls that rely upon self-identification with a particular attribute.

[Chris]

Yes, roughly 10% of American society is independent, and the vast bulk of people who claim to be independent are not independents. I agree that I was right all along. Thanks for coming out.

Yes, again, that was my point. Not sure why you argued about it.

[exploited]

Yes, again, that was my point. Not sure why you argued about it.

I didn't argue it. I asked you who you voted for, just like I asked Green Arrow who they voted for. You just decided that I must have concluded you are not independents based on that question, when in fact I didn't say anything at all about you or Green Arrow. I did say that Cletus isn't an independent, and that is because Cletus isn't an independent. He has voted Republican for most of his life, and will continue to vote Republican, 95% of the time, moving forward. Again, I know these things can be confusing for you, but try to keep up.

[Peter1469]

This has already been addressed. Most people think they are an independent, and then vote solid Republican or solid Democrat, with the occasional hiccup, for their entire lives.

It is a bit like polling people about their positive attributes. Everyone is going to say that they are open-minded, everyone is going to say that they aren't racist, etc. It is a very common problem with polls that rely upon self-identification with a particular attribute.

The people are waking up about the single party two party system.

[Chris]

It is approaching 30% now.

Probably higher given this lousy election...

https://i.snag.gy/m78bsP.jpg

[Tahuyaman]

63 Percent Of Independents Don’t Care About Trump’s ‘Locker Room’ Comments
Now we have professional athletes chiming in telling us that this kind of talk does not go on in a Locker room. Do they really think people are dumb enough to buy that?

We've had professional athletes take pictures of their junk in the locker room and text it to a female sports reporter. We've had female trainers sexually assaulted in a locker room. And they want to tell us that they don't say crude things in this locker rooms? Please.

[exploited]

In other bad self-identifying poll news...

http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/30/19-of-americans-self-identify-as-liberta


That answer also breaks down interestingly along political lines: 22 percent of Democrats said they were libertarians, more than the 18 percent of Republicans, and just a hair less than the 25 percent of independents.

And yet the libertarian party will probably never crack 10% nationally. Why is that, given the 19% of Americans who identify as libertarians?

[Chris]

...you don't really qualify...


I didn't argue it. I asked you who you voted for, just like I asked Green Arrow who they voted for. You just decided that I must have concluded you are not independents based on that question, when in fact I didn't say anything at all about you or Green Arrow....

You seem to have forgotten your response to my answer.


I did say that Cletus isn't an independent, and that is because Cletus isn't an independent....

And you admit to doing to Cletus.


And I'm confused? How many are posting with your account?

[Peter1469]

In other bad self-identifying poll news...

http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/30/19-of-americans-self-identify-as-liberta



And yet the libertarian party will probably never crack 10% nationally. Why is that, given the 19% of Americans who identify as libertarians?

I doubt any democrat would claim to be a libertarian. They are statists. Perhaps they don't understand what the word means.

[Tahuyaman]

The people are waking up about the single party two party system.


And that can change when or if quality people with true character represent one or both of the two party's.

[nathanbforrest45]

From what I have seen both men and women have engaged in "locker room talk". Its the latest craze for "lilberated" women to brag about their conquest with men just as it has been for men.

Furthermore, anyone who doesn't believe that women throw themselves at powerful or rich men are total fools. Can anyone explain why a 21 year old woman would consent to oral sex with a 50 year old man? Or why Anna Nicole Smith married a 80 year old man?

[Tahuyaman]

I doubt any democrat would claim to be a libertarian. They are statists. Perhaps they don't understand what the word means.

I believe that most people are confused as to what being a libertarian means.

[exploited]

I doubt any democrat would claim to be a libertarian. They are statists. Perhaps they don't understand what the word means.

And yet you accept without question the idea that 40% of Americans are "independents." Could it be that these types of polls are flawed when it comes to establishing a true picture of where Americans sit politically?

[Chris]

I believe that most people are confused as to what being a libertarian means.

Even libertarians!

[exploited]

You seem to have forgotten your response to my answer.



And you admit to doing to Cletus.


And I'm confused? How many are posting with your account?

Just me. You just have a severe learning disability. Nothing wrong with that, but I can't be held responsible for it.

[Chris]

Just me. You just have a severe learning disability. Nothing wrong with that, but I can't be held responsible for it.

Again, the pathetic insults. What is to be expected when it's shown you contradict yourself. Oh, wait, are you using Hegelian dialectics?

[Chris]

And yet you accept without question the idea that 40% of Americans are "independents." Could it be that these types of polls are flawed when it comes to establishing a true picture of where Americans sit politically?

Could it be that arguing a no true Scotsman is flawed? That's what you're doing when you say to someone who claims to be independent that he's not truly independent because in the past he voted Dem or Rep. People change, they move in and out of abstract categories.

[exploited]

Again, the pathetic insults. What is to be expected when it's shown you contradict yourself. Oh, wait, are you using Hegelian dialectics?

There is no contradiction. The idea that some people can be independent and others not, while both claim that status, is not contradictory.

Further, there is nothing insulting or wrong with having a learning disability, nor is there anything insulting about acknowledging it. You are a very well-read person who struggles with certain concepts. We all have weaknesses, nothing to be ashamed of.

[Chris]

People change over time.

Millennials Aren’t More Democratic—They’re Just Less Republican (http://reason.com/poll/2014/07/16/millennials-arent-more-democratictheyre)


In 2012 millennials voted for President Barack Obama over Mitt Romney 60 to 36 percent, but the latest Reason-Rupe study of millennials finds they are not overwhelmingly Democratic. In fact, they are no more Democratic than older Americans; instead they are more independent and less Republican.

Remarkably, given recent voting trends, millennials are slightly less likely (43%) to identify as Democratic than Americans over 30 (49%). Only 23 percent of millennials identify as Republican, half as likely as Americans 30 and up (40%). Instead, millennials are three times as likely (34%) as older Americans (11%) to identify as independent.

https://i.snag.gy/7W3uiX.jpg

[Chris]

There is no contradiction. The idea that some people can be independent and others not, while both claim that status, is not contradictory.

Further, there is nothing insulting or wrong with having a learning disability, nor is there anything insulting about acknowledging it. You are a very well-read person who struggles with certain concepts. We all have weaknesses, nothing to be ashamed of.


You said you didn't reject my answer. I just proved above you did. That's why I asked are their multiple people behind your account, one of you can't seem to remember what the other posted.

Ah, not insulting. Just ad hom = white flag.

[MisterVeritis]

Yes. The point is that you are one of the most vitriolic and hateful conservatives on this board, who has probably voted Republican for forty years, with the rare moderate Democrat thrown in, and you consider yourself an "independent."
Darn. How did I miss out? I thought I was the most vitriolic and hateful conservative on this board.

[Tahuyaman]

Even libertarians!

even some libertarians believe that one must agree with them 100% of the time or you aren't a true libertarian.

[MisterVeritis]

What this means on a policy level is that I am a firm supporter of classical rights, but I also believe in certain positive rights, such as healthcare and environmental protection.

"Positive rights" is just a pleasant way of calling for plunder. You are an authoritarian statist who prefers not to admit it.

[exploited]

Could it be that arguing a no true Scotsman is flawed? That's what you're doing when you say to someone who claims to be independent that he's not truly independent because in the past he voted Dem or Rep. People change, they move in and out of abstract categories.

Incorrect. I said that when you vote for a particular party the vast majority of the time, with only the occasional hiccup, you are not independent. You are instead aligned with a particular political party. The research is very clear about this.

[Tahuyaman]

Darn. How did I miss out? I thought I was the most vitriolic and hateful conservative on this board.

exploited has said that about everyone who disagrees with him. He can't seem to handle being disagreed with.

[Peter1469]

And yet you accept without question the idea that 40% of Americans are "independents." Could it be that these types of polls are flawed when it comes to establishing a true picture of where Americans sit politically?

I am not surprised that people are abandoning the single two party system.

[exploited]

exploited has said that about everyone who disagrees with him. He can't seem to handle being disagreed with.

I have? No doubt you can quote me, given your extensive knowledge of what I've said in the past. Please, go ahead and show where I declared someone to be the most hateful and vitriolic member of the board.

I'll wait.

[Chris]

People change. Move from one abstract category to another. More recent evidence.

Americans Declare Independence (http://www.gp.org/americans_declare_independence)


https://i.snag.gy/MnwD5P.jpg

50% of Americans now identify as independents, compared to 29% as Democrats and just 21% as Republicans (NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, June 2015*) Some surveys show more than half of young people consider themselves independents!

With support for the two “major” parties so dramatically eroded – the two parties together have only half the people – why do they still control our government? We think the massive dissatisfaction with Republicans and Democrats is an opening for the Green Party to break through.

In 2013, a Gallup poll found 33% percent of Americans cited dissatisfaction with government and elected representatives as the nation's top issue, the highest such percentage in Gallup's poll dating back to 1939.

Furthermore, in 2014 Gallup found that 58% of Americans say a third party is needed because the Republican and Democratic parties "do such a poor job" representing the American people. Since 2007, the majority has agreed.

...

[Tahuyaman]

I have? No doubt you can quote me, given your extensive knowledge of what I've said in the past. Please, go ahead and show where I declared someone to be the most hateful and vitriolic member of the board.

I'll wait.

you just did...

[Chris]

Yes. The point is that you are one of the most vitriolic and hateful conservatives on this board, who has probably voted Republican for forty years, with the rare moderate Democrat thrown in, and you consider yourself an "independent."


I have? No doubt you can quote me, given your extensive knowledge of what I've said in the past. Please, go ahead and show where I declared someone to be the most hateful and vitriolic member of the board.

I'll wait.


And that's from this very thread.

How many people are posting with your account?

[Newpublius]

And that's from this very thread.

How many people are posting with your account?

Well there IS the Canadian alter ego but you know its typical left wing shaming. You see if you don't go along with their plans because you want to spend the money you earn on such silly things as yoir own children, you must be a racist, selfish and hateful because you don't agree with congressional prerogative.

Nevertheless color me guilty, I hate war, I hate debt and I hate paying more than half my i come to the various governments pilfering me. Never met anybody who liked any of that shit.

[Newpublius]

As for the thread itself, even if accurate, currently Trump is down even in Rasmussen polls and if 63% don't care, that means 37% do care. I am just curious, what percentage of independents don't care about HRC recent wikileaks revelations regarding Wall Street speeches she made.....something tells me HRC is ahead on that score......Trump's minuses > HRC's minuses on recent election news.

[Chris]

Incorrect. I said that when you vote for a particular party the vast majority of the time, with only the occasional hiccup, you are not independent. You are instead aligned with a particular political party. The research is very clear about this.

That's called arguing a no true scotsman. You're simply picking a defining away the issue here.

People, as I have been showing, change. They leave their party to become independents. The research is clear on this.

[Cletus]

I didn't argue it. I asked you who you voted for, just like I asked Green Arrow who they voted for. You just decided that I must have concluded you are not independents based on that question, when in fact I didn't say anything at all about you or Green Arrow. I did say that Cletus isn't an independent, and that is because Cletus isn't an independent. He has voted Republican for most of his life, and will continue to vote Republican, 95% of the time, moving forward. Again, I know these things can be confusing for you, but try to keep up.

There really is something wrong with your cognitive processes.

What do you think an Independent is? He is somebody who is not constrained by party affiliations, who votes for the candidate of his choice, regardless of the party supporting that candidate.

I am not a registered Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian. I am a registered Independent. I do not vote for a candidate because he is aligned with a particular party. I vote for the candidate whose political views are most closely aligned with my own, regardless of his party affiliation. If that person is a Republican, I will vote for him. If that person is a Democrat, I will vote for him. If that belongs to some other party, I will vote for him.

That is the very definition of an independent voter. What percentage of his votes go to a particular party is completely irrelevant. A person could be an Independent voter if 95% of his votes went to the candidates of a particular party if the reason he cast those votes was because of the positions of the candidates and not their party affiliations.

This really is pretty simple.

[Cletus]

Darn. How did I miss out? I thought I was the most vitriolic and hateful conservative on this board.

You are just going to have to try harder. :grin:

[Tahuyaman]

And that's from this very thread.

How many people are posting with your account?


Isn't it amazing how someone can say somthing then almost immediately deny making the comment?

[Chris]

As for the thread itself, even if accurate, currently Trump is down even in Rasmussen polls and if 63% don't care, that means 37% do care. I am just curious, what percentage of independents don't care about HRC recent wikileaks revelations regarding Wall Street speeches she made.....something tells me HRC is ahead on that score......Trump's minuses > HRC's minuses on recent election news.

About as much as I care about Trump's locker room talk. I think people present themselves differently in different situations. The way I talk to family is different the way I talk to colleagues is different than the way I talk to members here. If one is acting as or in the capacity of, one should conform to the rules of the role. First example comes to mind is the court clerk in KY who was against gay marriage, in her capacity as court clerk however she should have agree to issue the license, her personal and professional opinions are at odds.

[Chris]

Isn't it amazing how someone can say somthing then almost immediately deny making the comment?

Amazing, simply amazing!

[exploited]

you just did...

Do try and keep up. Your claim was that I had said it before. I know you guys really struggle with this stuff, but I would expect that you can put my words in the appropriate context, especially when I directly quote you.

[Tahuyaman]

Heavy sigh........

[Tahuyaman]

Amazing, simply amazing!


There might be a better word than amazing to describe it.

[exploited]

There really is something wrong with your cognitive processes.

What do you think an Independent is? He is somebody who is not constrained by party affiliations, who votes for the candidate of his choice, regardless of the party supporting that candidate.

I am not a registered Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian. I am a registered Independent. I do not vote for a candidate because he is aligned with a particular party. I vote for the candidate whose political views are most closely aligned with my own, regardless of his party affiliation. If that person is a Republican, I will vote for him. If that person is a Democrat, I will vote for him. If that belongs to some other party, I will vote for him.

That is the very definition of an independent voter. What percentage of his votes go to a particular party is completely irrelevant. A person could be an Independent voter if 95% of his votes went to the candidates of a particular party if the reason he cast those votes was because of the positions of the candidates and not their party affiliations.

This really is pretty simple.

The research, as well as basic logic, disagrees. By your contention, anyone who has ever voted for a Democrat as well as a Republican is an independent. Which means that basically every single person in America is an independent.

But please, carry on.

[exploited]

Heavy sigh........

Did you or did you not say that I have said that to other posters who disagree with me? I know this is hard but I have faith in you.

[Cletus]

The research, as well as basic logic, disagrees. By your contention, anyone who has ever voted for a Democrat as well as a Republican is an independent. Which means that basically every single person in America is an independent.

But please, carry on.

No, that is not my contention. You are incapable of understanding or deliberately misrepresenting what is being said.

Contrary to the preponderance of evidence, I don't really think you are stupid. That leaves dishonest.

[Newpublius]

About as much as I care about Trump's locker room talk. I think people present themselves differently in different situations. The way I talk to family is different the way I talk to colleagues is different than the way I talk to members here. If one is acting as or in the capacity of, one should conform to the rules of the role. First example comes to mind is the court clerk in KY who was against gay marriage, in her capacity as court clerk however she should have agree to issue the license, her personal and professional opinions are at odds.

While in NJ now I was born in NYC and have strong ties there. I worked there for five years and since selling my business I am now a temp and spend about 1/3 of my time in fidi. NY is gruff, gruff place. Trust me, I've seen it, not for the faint of heart. But by the same token much of America is infinitely more polite, frankly, even in private. But yeah I'm going with the tough business guy who says shit BECAUSE it offends you over the veneer of civility of a career politician.

That's because being the boss isn't about being liked and when I was the boss I wasn't running a popularity contest either.

But this IS where politics differs from business.

[Tahuyaman]

incredible.....

[Tahuyaman]

....
Contrary to the preponderance of evidence, I don't really think you are stupid. That leaves dishonest.

That evidence is quit convincing though.

[exploited]

No, that is not my contention. You are incapable of understanding or deliberately misrepresenting what is being said.

Contrary to the preponderance of evidence, I don't really think you are stupid. That leaves dishonest.

I understand perfectly what you have said. You have said that, regardless of voting patterns, that a person is an independent if they vote according to their values. Which is an absurd point, because everyone votes according to their values, even people who have always voted for a particular party. Following this train of thought to its logical conclusion, every single person in America is an independent. Sure, TrueBlue has voted for Democrats for his entire existence, but he is an independent because he is voting for those candidates who best reflect his values!

Good thinking, Cletus.

[exploited]

That evidence is quit convincing though.

Good one little buddy.

[Chris]

No, that is not my contention. You are incapable of understanding or deliberately misrepresenting what is being said.

Contrary to the preponderance of evidence, I don't really think you are stupid. That leaves dishonest.



Exactly. I mean, on your argument.

One could have voted Rep for an entire lifetime and this election out of disgust switched to independent. One is, therefore, despite all the no true Scotsman, independent.

[Chris]

While in NJ now I was born in NYC and have strong ties there. I worked there for five years and since selling my business I am now a temp and spend about 1/3 of my time in fidi. NY is gruff, gruff place. Trust me, I've seen it, not for the faint of heart. But by the same token much of America is infinitely more polite, frankly, even in private. But yeah I'm going with the tough business guy who says shit BECAUSE it offends you over the veneer of civility of a career politician.

That's because being the boss isn't about being liked and when I was the boss I wasn't running a popularity contest either.

But this IS where politics differs from business.


If Trump only had something to say. If he knocked on my door I'd point to the no solicitation sign.

[Newpublius]

Two big tent parties bring many who share a portion of their platform along with many who are willing to pick the lesser of two evils to vote against the Democrats. I am independent, in my heart of hearts I am unewuivocally mostly sympatico with the libertarians, but they have no shot, and at the very minimum I'm voting against the Democrats. That doesn't make me a Republican. Independents aren't necessarily centrists in between the Republicans and Democrats, there are SOME moderate independents and they will flow back and forth actually. They're about 5-10% of the electorate.

[Chris]

I understand perfectly what you have said. You have said that, regardless of voting patterns, that a person is an independent if they vote according to their values. Which is an absurd point, because everyone votes according to their values, even people who have always voted for a particular party. Following this train of thought to its logical conclusion, every single person in America is an independent. Sure, TrueBlue has voted for Democrats for his entire existence, but he is an independent because he is voting for those candidates who best reflect his values!

Good thinking, Cletus.


It is only absurd on the basis of your no true Scotsman argument, which as a fallacy is absurd in itself.

Cletus makes sense to the rest of us.

[Newpublius]

It is only absurd on the basis of your no true Scotsman argument, which as a fallacy is absurd in itself.

Cletus makes sense to the rest of us.

In the town I live in which is predominantly Republican there have been many Democrats who actually join the Republican party for TWO reasons: 1. to take part in local primary elections where the town council is effectively decided and 2. to be on the town council where, at least at thr local level the R/D distinction is irrelevant.

This happens in blue towns in say, Hudson County.

[exploited]

It is only absurd on the basis of your no true Scotsman argument, which as a fallacy is absurd in itself.

Cletus makes sense to the rest of us.

Yes, I know he makes sense to the rest of you. Unfortunately, what he is saying is that nearly every person in America is an independent, on the grounds that they have voted for both a Democrat and a Republican at some point in their lives. This is absurd, and a logically untenable position. Your hilarious accusation of a "no true scotsman" fallacy when discussing the very definition of a word is, quite frankly, embarrassing.

[Chris]

In the town I live in which is predominantly Republican there have been many Democrats who actually join the Republican party for TWO reasons: 1. to take part in local primary elections where the town council is effectively decided and 2. to be on the town council where, at least at thr local level the R/D distinction is irrelevant.

This happens in blue towns in say, Hudson County.


You all must have to register with a party. In TX we don't.

My block is predominantly Rep and the next block over Dem. I sport a red white and blue porcupine on my truck and people say what the heck is that?

[Chris]

Yes, I know he makes sense to the rest of you. Unfortunately, what he is saying is that nearly every person in America is an independent, on the grounds that they have voted for both a Democrat and a Republican at some point in their lives. This is absurd, and a logically untenable position.

No, he is not saying that at all. You're, once again, inventing straw men easy to knock the hey out of.

[Tahuyaman]

?.... I sport a red white and blue porcupine on my truck and people say what the heck is that?


What the heck is that?

[Newpublius]

You all must have to register with a party. In TX we don't.

My block is predominantly Rep and the next block over Dem. I sport a red white and blue porcupine on my truck and people say what the heck is that?

No, I chose no party, but you can if you want. If you don't, no primary, if you do, you can do primary.

[Tahuyaman]

No, he is not saying that at all. You're, once again, inventing straw men easy to knock the hey out of.

Once he gets stuck on stupid, it's over.

[exploited]

No, he is not saying that at all. You're, once again, inventing straw men easy to knock the hey out of.

Of course that is what he is saying. There is no way around it.


What do you think an Independent is? He is somebody who is not constrained by party affiliations, who votes for the candidate of his choice, regardless of the party supporting that candidate.

...

That is the very definition of an independent voter. What percentage of his votes go to a particular party is completely irrelevant. A person could be an Independent voter if 95% of his votes went to the candidates of a particular party if the reason he cast those votes was because of the positions of the candidates and not their party affiliations.

Indeed. According to him, it doesn't matter that a person votes for, say, the Republicans 95% of the time. All that matters is that they are voting for a person they believe reflects their values. The logical conclusion is that anyone who votes for a person they believe reflects their values is an independent, which means that every single person who votes is an independent.

The best part about this argument is that the reason he wants to use it is to disparage those who identify as a Republican or a Democrat. They, like him, vote for the people who best reflect their values. They, like him, vote for a particular party 95% of the time. They, like him, will occasionally vote for people of another political party. But he is different, you see. He isn't like those partisans. He is independent!

[exploited]

Once he gets stuck on stupid, it's over.

Good one little buddy.

[Chris]

What the heck is that?

LOL.

https://i.snag.gy/zy8FLr.jpg

Libertarian Porcupine Shaped Logo Sticker (https://www.amazon.com/Libertarian-Porcupine-Shaped-Logo-Sticker/dp/B007IJV820)

(Says made in USA but comes from China or somewhere like that.)

[Cletus]

Of course that is what he is saying. There is no way around it.



Indeed. According to him, it doesn't matter that a person votes for, say, the Republicans 95% of the time. All that matters is that they are voting for a person they believe reflects their values. The logical conclusion is that anyone who votes for a person they believe reflects their values is an independent, which means that every single person who votes is an independent.

The best part about this argument is that the reason he wants to use it is to disparage those who identify as a Republican or a Democrat. They, like him, vote for the people who best reflect their values. They, like him, vote for a particular party 95% of the time. They, like him, will occasionally vote for people of another political party. But he is different, you see. He isn't like those partisans. He is independent!

Logic and you have at very best, a nodding acquaintance.

[Cletus]

No, I chose no party, but you can if you want. If you don't, no primary, if youbdo, you can donprimary.

That is the way it here.

I am a registered Independent. Because of that, I do not get to vote in the Primaries.

[Chris]

What you say he says:


...what he is saying is that nearly every person in America is an independent, on the grounds that they have voted for both a Democrat and a Republican at some point in their lives...

What you quote him as saying:


What do you think an Independent is? He is somebody who is not constrained by party affiliations, who votes for the candidate of his choice, regardless of the party supporting that candidate.

What you say he says has nothing to do with what he says.

Would these help?

https://i.snag.gy/MdnicF.jpg

[exploited]

Logic and you have at very best, a nodding acquaintance.

Nah. Your argument was illogical and made no sense. Trying to argue that somebody is an independent when they have and will vote for a particular party 95% of the time is rank nonsense, and literally incoherent, for all of the perfectly valid reasons I've listed above.

[Tahuyaman]

LOL.

https://i.snag.gy/zy8FLr.jpg

Libertarian Porcupine Shaped Logo Sticker (https://www.amazon.com/Libertarian-Porcupine-Shaped-Logo-Sticker/dp/B007IJV820)

(Says made in USA but comes from China or somewhere like that.)

I've never seen that before

[exploited]

What you say he says:



What you quote him as saying:



What you say he says has nothing to do with what he says.

Would these help?

https://i.snag.gy/MdnicF.jpg

Brutally dishonest. You deliberately left out the second half of that quotation, because it annihilates the point you are very poorly trying to make.


That is the very definition of an independent voter. What percentage of his votes go to a particular party is completely irrelevant. A person could be an Independent voter if 95% of his votes went to the candidates of a particular party if the reason he cast those votes was because of the positions of the candidates and not their party affiliations.

At the end of the day, in order to accept your argument, you must accept the idea that everyone who votes for candidates who best reflect their values, even if that means voting for the same party their entire lives, is an independent. That is extremely incoherent and irrational.

[Tahuyaman]

Logic and you have at very best, a nodding acquaintance.

Thats being very generous.

[Chris]

Brutally dishonest. You deliberately left out the second half of that quotation, because it annihilates the point you are very poorly trying to make.

Second half expands on the first. Doesn't change his point.

Cletus is registered as an Independent. He says he's an independent. I believe him.

I don't believe you.

[exploited]

Second half expands on the first. Doesn't change his point.

Cletus is registered as an Independent. He says he's an independent. I believe him.

I don't believe you.

Yes, he is so independent that he has and will vote Republican for the rest of his life. Really great point.

[Chris]

Yes, he is so independent that he has and will vote Republican for the rest of his life. Really great point.

Where do you buy your crystal balls, Walmart. If that isn't your most blatant straw man yet, to insist you know how he'll vote the rest of his life.

Oh, wait, you're just joking. Ahahaha.

[exploited]

https://www.thenation.com/article/what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-independent-voters/


...

Both candidates’ supporters—and Donald Trump—have it mostly wrong. While around four-in-10 voters say they’re independents, very few are actually swing voters. In fact, according to an analysis of voting patterns conducted by Michigan State University political scientist Corwin Smidt, those who identify as independents today are more stable in their support for one or the other party than were “strong partisans” back in the 1970s. According to Dan Hopkins, a professor of government at the University of Pennsylvania, “independents who lean toward the Democrats are less likely to back GOP candidates than are weak Democrats.”


While most independents vote like partisans, on average they’re slightly more likely to just stay home in November. “Typically independents are less active and less engaged in politics than are strong partisans,” says Smidt.


Rising polarization—and the increasingly personal and nasty nature of our politics—has had a paradoxical effect on the American electorate. On one hand, the growing distance between the two major parties has contributed to a dramatic decrease in the number of true swing voters. Smidt found that low-information voters today are as aware that there are significant differences between the two major parties as well-informed people were in the 1970s, and people who are aware of those differences tend to have more consistent views of the parties’ candidates. At the same time, says Smidt, many people who vote consistently for one party say they’re independents because they “view partisanship as bad” and see claiming allegiance to a party “as socially unacceptable.”

...

And that is what this is all about. People want to disparage those partisans, even as they behave in exactly the same way.

[Tahuyaman]

Are the people who are so upset or outraged about Trump's equally outraged by this?

Just a warning, Don't listen to this video if things like this offend you.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fTWgjg2ZQeY

Many if not most of the people who are up in arms about Trump's comments defend this garbage as a cultural thing which we must accept. Some even call this crap art. Some call these punks talented.

[exploited]

Are the people who are so upset or outraged about Trump's equally outraged by this?

Just a warning, Don't listen to this video if things like this offend you.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fTWgjg2ZQeY

Is it your contention that rap artists and Presidential candidates ought to be held to the same standard?

[Cletus]

This Smidt guy is an assistant professor in the poli sci dept at MSU. He has never talked to me. I am reasonably never certain he has never talked to Chris. In fact, I would be willing to wager that he has never talked to ANY of the self professed Independents on this forum.

To help you understand what that means, let me make it simple for you.

He doesn't know anything about any of the Independents here.

[exploited]

This Smidt guy is an assistant professor in the poli sci dept at MSU. He has never talked to me. I am reasonably never certain he has never talked to Chris. In fact, I would be willing to wager that he has never talked to ANY of the self professed Independents on this forum.

To help you understand what that means, let me make it simple for you.

He doesn't know anything about any of the Independents here.

And yet he describes you perfectly.

You're not an independent, and never have been. You're a Republican who will occasionally vote for other parties when you feel that a particular candidate isn't Republican enough. You do this because you fancy yourself different from the rest of the partisans, even though you behave the exact same way.

[Cletus]

And yet he describes you perfectly.

He is not even close. In fact, he was wrong on almost all counts. He claimed that as an Independent, I would be less likely to vote. Completely wrong. He claims that as an Independent, I should be more stable in my support for one party or any other. Completely wrong. Party affiliation is irrelevant to me. Only the views of the candidates matter.

He doesn't seem to be any better informed than you are.


You're not an independent, and never have been. You're a Republican who will occasionally vote for other parties when you feel that a particular candidate isn't Republican enough. You do this because you fancy yourself different from the rest of the partisans, even though you behave the exact same way.

You are an idiot.

[Tahuyaman]

Is it your contention that rap artists and Presidential candidates ought to be held to the same standard?


Really? That's your justification for this?

[exploited]

He is not even close. In fact, he was wrong on almost all counts. He claimed that as an Independent, I would be less likely to vote. Completely wrong. He claims that as an Independent, I should be more stable in my support for one party or any other. Completely wrong. Party affiliation is irrelevant to me. Only the views of the candidates matter.

He doesn't seem to be any better informed than you are.



You are an idiot.

Good one little buddy. Of course you and I both know that you are a solid Republican voter. In fact, you didn't disagree when I speculated that you vote Republican 95% of the time. And yet...

"He claims that as an Independent, I should be more stable in my support for one party or any other. Completely wrong..."

At the end of the day, Cletus, you just aren't a very good poster. Next time we talk I'll try to use less reputable sources and smaller words, so that you can keep up.

[Tahuyaman]

You are an idiot.

not in the clinical sense, but he certainly has his own view and does not want to let the facts of the matter alter that view.

[exploited]

Really? That's your justification for this?

Well, as noted, I don't particularly care about what Trump said, as I'm not a puritanical moralizer. I've said worse things before, and so have many of my friends, all of whom are extremely polite, considerate and kind to their significant others. The difference, I suppose, is that I was young when I said those things, and that I would never say them now, in any context.

But, yes, I do think it is reasonable to hold rap artists and Presidential candidates to different standards. Do you disagree?

[Cletus]

Good one little buddy. Of course you and I both know that you are a solid Republican voter. In fact, you didn't disagree when I speculated that you vote Republican 95% of the time. And yet...

I never vote "Republican". I never vote "Democrat". I vote for specific candidates, not the parties that support them. I have never voted for a candidate because he is a Republican or because he is a Democrat. That is what you can't seem to understand. You seem unable to look beyond your own behavior and believe there are people who do not conduct themselves as you do.


At the end of the day, Cletus, you just aren't a very good poster. Next time we talk I'll try to use less reputable sources and smaller words, so that you can keep up.

Yet, here you are... trying to emulate my speech and say to me almost exactly what I have said to you numerous times.

I guess I should be flattered, but I am not.

[Tahuyaman]

Do you believe that a rapper who made offensive comments about women should be forever banned from running for president of the United States if they choose to seek that office?

I also believe that if you are outraged about comments Trump, or anyone made years ago before they even considered a political run, you should be equally outraged about what some celebrate as art when it is equally or even more offensive.

Of course, some have a sliding scale as to what is considered offensive, but they would be hypocrits, wouldn't they?

[Chris]

He is not even close. In fact, he was wrong on almost all counts. He claimed that as an Independent, I would be less likely to vote. Completely wrong. He claims that as an Independent, I should be more stable in my support for one party or any other. Completely wrong. Party affiliation is irrelevant to me. Only the views of the candidates matter.

He doesn't seem to be any better informed than you are.



You are an idiot.


Now, now, no need to go in that direction, please. He's just wrong, that's been shown. Don't take the bait.

[Chris]

Good one little buddy. Of course you and I both know that you are a solid Republican voter. In fact, you didn't disagree when I speculated that you vote Republican 95% of the time. And yet...

"He claims that as an Independent, I should be more stable in my support for one party or any other. Completely wrong..."

At the end of the day, Cletus, you just aren't a very good poster. Next time we talk I'll try to use less reputable sources and smaller words, so that you can keep up.


When you try to turn the topic into other members and talk down to them, you need to expect them to react negatively.

[Cletus]

Now, now, no need to go in that direction, please. He's just wrong, that's been shown. Don't take the bait.

You are right, of course.

But... :cool2:

[Chris]

You are right, of course.

But... :cool2:


Naturally people will draw conclusions. Can't help that.

Reputation is important.

[exploited]

Do you believe that a rapper who made offensive comments about women should be forever banned from running for president of the United States if they choose to seek that office?

I also believe that if you are outraged about comments Trump, or anyone made years ago before they even considered a political run, you should be equally outraged about what some celebrate as art when it is equally or even more offensive.

Of course, some have a sliding scale as to what is considered offensive, but they would be hypocrits, wouldn't they?

Banned? No, of course not.

Subject to the court of public opinion? Certainly.

I personally wouldn't hold it against them, but some would, and there is nothing wrong with that.

[exploited]

I never vote "Republican". I never vote "Democrat". I vote for specific candidates, not the parties that support them. I have never voted for a candidate because he is a Republican or because he is a Democrat. That is what you can't seem to understand. You seem unable to look beyond your own behavior and believe there are people who do not conduct themselves as you do.



Yet, here you are... trying to emulate my speech and say to me almost exactly what I have said to you numerous times.

I guess I should be flattered, but I am not.

You have voted for Republican candidates throughout your life, and yet maintain that you are an independent, because you want to distinguish yourself from the other partisans. No worries. You aren't capable of self-awareness, and so lash out when confronted with the facts. This doesn't change the fact that you aren't an independent, but if it makes you feel more comfortable to pretend, I think that's fine.

[Tahuyaman]

You are right, of course.

But... :cool2:


Expoloited reminds me of one of my team leaders in the army.

Land navigation and map reading is a critical skill as an infantryman. My Lt, the squad leaders and I would be trying to pinpoint our position within a few meters. We would be going over a map and pointing to what we thought our current location was. We would all be within a few meters of each other. This other team leader would step in and point to a position fifty clicks to the west of our current location and be adamant that he was right. exploited is that guy.

[exploited]

When you try to turn the topic into other members and talk down to them, you need to expect them to react negatively.

I don't care how he reacts.

[exploited]

Expoloited reminds me of one of my team leaders in the army.

Land navigation and map reading is a critical skill as an infantryman. My Lt, the squad leaders and I would be trying to pinpoint our position within a few meters. We would be going over a map and pointing to what we thought our current location was. We would all be within a few meters of each other. This other team leader would step in and point to a position fifty clicks to the west of our current location and be adamant that he was right. @exploited (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1808) is that guy.

Good one little buddy.

[Bo-4]

Busted!

ALL the time, DailyCaller takes crap sandwich polls and sells them as prime rib on fresh sourdough.

They're confident that their readers won't click links and will simply take their word for it.

It's hilarious. :)

[Tahuyaman]

Banned? No, of course not.

Subject to the court of public opinion? Certainly.

I personally wouldn't hold it against them, but some would, and there is nothing wrong with that.

But yet you hold Trump's long past comments against him. That's called a double standard.

[exploited]

But yet you hold Trump's long past comments against him. That's called a double standard.

Incorrect. Let me quote myself from the last page:


Well, as noted, I don't particularly care about what Trump said, as I'm not a puritanical moralizer. I've said worse things before, and so have many of my friends, all of whom are extremely polite, considerate and kind to their significant others. The difference, I suppose, is that I was young when I said those things, and that I would never say them now, in any context.

And I stand by that. It isn't what he said that bothers me, it is that I stopped making those kinds of comments in my early 20s, and would never say anything like that nowadays. I realize now that it isn't appropriate, and is kind of hurtful, especially when many of my friends have daughters I care about quite a bit, and would be very upset if someone spoke about them like that in front of me. But the words themselves aren't particularly shocking, I just have moved past that point in my life where I would say those things, and am a bit surprised that a 65 year old man hadn't.

[Tahuyaman]

Expoloited reminds me of one of my team leaders in the army.

Land navigation and map reading is a critical skill as an infantryman. My Lt, the squad leaders and I would be trying to pinpoint our position within a few meters. We would be going over a map and pointing to what we thought our current location was. We would all be within a few meters of each other. This other team leader would step in and point to a position fifty clicks to the west of our current location and be adamant that he was right. @exploited (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1808) is that guy.


Good one little buddy.

I know. It fits you to a tee.

[Tahuyaman]

Incorrect. Let me quote myself from the last page:



And I stand by that. It isn't what he said that bothers me, it is that I stopped making those kinds of comments in my early 20s, and would never say anything like that nowadays. I realize now that it isn't appropriate, and is kind of hurtful, especially when many of my friends have daughters I care about quite a bit, and would be very upset if someone spoke about them like that in front of me.


I like how you claim not to care while telling people why you care.

[exploited]

I like how you claim not to care while telling people why you care.

Like I said, it isn't the content of his speech, it is the lack of maturity that really stands out. As I said, I've said far more offensive things, so I'm not going to hold that against him... but at the same time, I'm a bit surprised to hear these words coming from a 65 year old man. Typically people move past those kinds of comments in their early 20s, even late teens. It is funny at the time, and generally not meant to hurt anyone, but as you get older, you tend to become a little less crude and a little less willing to talk like that. At least that is my experience. The same can be said for my general sense of humour - as time goes on, I get way less of a kick out of racial and sexual humour than I used too.

At the end of the day, my outrage level over these comments is basically "zero." I don't really care, although I can see clearly that this will hurt him with two important demographics - evangelicals and women.

[MisterVeritis]

Like I said, it isn't the content of his speech, it is the lack of maturity that really stands out. As I said, I've said far more offensive things, so I'm not going to hold that against him... but at the same time, I'm a bit surprised to hear these words coming from a 65 year old man. Typically people move past those kinds of comments in their early 20s, even late teens. It is funny at the time, and generally not meant to hurt anyone, but as you get older, you tend to become a little less crude and a little less willing to talk like that. At least that is my experience. The same can be said for my general sense of humour - as time goes on, I get way less of a kick out of racial and sexual humour than I used too.

At the end of the day, my outrage level over these comments is basically "zero." I don't really care, although I can see clearly that this will hurt him with two important demographics - evangelicals and women.
If Trump's flaws are sufficient reason to end the nation, well, let's end it.

[exploited]

If Trump's flaws are sufficient reason to end the nation, well, let's end it.

The nation isn't going to end, you just won't get your way. You will have to come to terms with that, because it is going to happen more and more as the population becomes younger overall.

Don't worry, though. We'll fix these problems and you can enjoy a comfortable and long life in the most free and prosperous nation in the world.

[MisterVeritis]

The nation isn't going to end, you just won't get your way. You will have to come to terms with that, because it is going to happen more and more as the population becomes younger overall.

Don't worry, though. We'll fix these problems and you can enjoy a comfortable and long life in the most free and prosperous nation in the world.
What impact do you believe legalizing 11-25 million illegal aliens will have on the nation?

What impact do you believe open borders will have on the nation? How will an additional 30 million of the poorest, dumbest, sickest, illiterate brown people affect the nation?

[exploited]

What impact do you believe legalizing 11-25 million illegal aliens will have on the nation?

What impact do you believe open borders will have on the nation? How will an additional 30 million of the poorest, dumbest, sickest, illiterate brown people affect the nation?

Granting amnesty and a clear path to citizenship will be overwhelming positive. Mexicans are a fine people and, at least 90% of the time, make excellent and law-abiding citizens.

Open borders, with moderate and sensible regulation, is a valued American tradition that stretches back centuries. I imagine that it will have the same effect it has always had: sustaining and growing the population, making the US a diverse and welcoming place, and improving things overall.

[Newpublius]

Granting amnesty and a clear path to citizenship will be overwhelming positive. Mexicans are a fine people and, at least 90% of the time, make excellent and law-abiding citizens.

Open borders, with moderate and sensible regulation, is a valued American tradition that stretches back centuries. I imagine that it will have the same effect it has always had: sustaining and growing the population, making the US a diverse and welcoming place, and improving things overall.

Free immigration is fine, free immigration to welfare is not. The incomes of the vast majority of illegal aliens indisputably qualify them for Medicaid. I love immigration, I love Australia's skilled migration policy, but no immigrant should be able to make a moral claim to my income.

[Cletus]

Expoloited reminds me of one of my team leaders in the army.

Land navigation and map reading is a critical skill as an infantryman. My Lt, the squad leaders and I would be trying to pinpoint our position within a few meters. We would be going over a map and pointing to what we thought our current location was. We would all be within a few meters of each other. This other team leader would step in and point to a position fifty clicks to the west of our current location and be adamant that he was right. @exploited (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1808) is that guy.

We have all known those types, haven't we? :grin:

[Tahuyaman]

We have all known those types, haven't we? :grin:


We have, but I still find them amusing as long as I don't need to deal with them consistently in real life.

[MisterVeritis]

Granting amnesty and a clear path to citizenship will be overwhelming positive. Mexicans are a fine people and, at least 90% of the time, make excellent and law-abiding citizens.

Open borders, with moderate and sensible regulation, is a valued American tradition that stretches back centuries. I imagine that it will have the same effect it has always had: sustaining and growing the population, making the US a diverse and welcoming place, and improving things overall.
You have failed to think.

The people coming are the dregs. They are illiterate in their native languages. They do not speak American English. They are low skilled. If they were going to be an economic boom why aren't they where they live?

We will be a third world nation.

[Tahuyaman]

Unregulated open borders is a recipe for disaster. If you can't control your borders, you do not have a nation worth maintaining.

[exploited]

You have failed to think.

The people coming are the dregs. They are illiterate in their native languages. They do not speak American English. They are low skilled. If they were going to be an economic boom why aren't they where they live?

We will be a third world nation.

That is okay, America will give them the opportunities they need to improve themselves. Immigrants tend to be extremely resourceful and productive people, and they have a pretty positive impact on the communities and states they live in.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w15507


Using the large variation in the inflow of immigrants across US states we analyze the impact of immigration on state employment, average hours worked, physical capital accumulation and, most importantly, total factor productivity and its skill bias. We use the location of a state relative to the Mexican border and to the main ports of entry, as well as the existence of communities of immigrants before 1960, as instruments. We find no evidence that immigrants crowded-out employment and hours worked by natives. At the same time we find robust evidence that they increased total factor productivity, on the one hand, while they decreased capital intensity and the skill-bias of production technologies, on the other. These results are robust to controlling for several other determinants of productivity that may vary with geography such as R&D spending, computer adoption, international competition in the form of exports and sector composition. Our results suggest that immigrants promoted efficient task specialization, thus increasing TFP and, at the same time, promoted the adoption of unskilled-biased technology as the theory of directed technologial change would predict. Combining these effects, an increase in employment in a US state of 1% due to immigrants produced an increase in income per worker of 0.5% in that state.

There is also the possibility of a taco stand on every corner, and that is an enticing one.

[exploited]

We have all known those types, haven't we?


We have, but I still find them amusing as long as I don't need to deal with them consistently in real life.

http://images.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_640x430/public/dumb_lead.jpg

[ripmeister]

http://images.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_640x430/public/dumb_lead.jpg

Thanks for the best laugh of the day. Good one!

[Tahuyaman]

ALL the time, DailyCaller takes crap sandwich polls and sells them as prime rib on fresh sourdough.

They're confident that their readers won't click links and will simply take their word for it.

It's hilarious. :)

Link....?

[Green Arrow]

No, he's not. No point arguing. Mind your your own tone.

Mind my tone?

Question...are you ever wrong?

[del]

Mind my tone?

Question...are you ever wrong?

only when he's honest, so, no

[MisterVeritis]

That is okay, America will give them the opportunities they need to improve themselves. Immigrants tend to be extremely resourceful and productive people, and they have a pretty positive impact on the communities and states they live in.

There is also the possibility of a taco stand on every corner, and that is an enticing one.
You are delusional. I wonder why? Do you believe you will be spared the misery that will come with 30-40-50-60-70 million new illiterate people? Will your taxes alone be kept the same? Will the inevitable crime bypass your community?

Does Europe offer any lessons for the open borders zealots?

[Common Sense]

LOL..yeah, he's delusional.

[MisterVeritis]

LOL..yeah, he's delusional.
We agree. He is delusional. And you have no stake.

What happens to Canada when the US ends?

[Common Sense]

We agree. He is delusional. And you have no stake.

What happens to Canada when the US ends?

It's called sarcasm.

The delusion I see is the nonsense you're spouting. The chicken little thing about the sky falling is amusing though. Maybe you could get a placard made and walk the streets with it.

[exploited]

You are delusional. I wonder why? Do you believe you will be spared the misery that will come with 30-40-50-60-70 million new illiterate people? Will your taxes alone be kept the same? Will the inevitable crime bypass your community?

Does Europe offer any lessons for the open borders zealots?

I think everyone will be spared misery. America is already a fantastic place to live and work - one of the freest countries in the world, with a robust and strong civil and legal system, low crime, low corruption, lots of natural resources, and lots of space for accommodating a greater population. There are some things that need to be improved, and it isn't perfect, but overall it is a wonderful country, and each and every American ought to take at least some pride in it.

As for taxes, I am not concerned about that in the least. Research shows that immigration is a net benefit to tax revenues.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-01/study-undocumented-immigrants-pay-billions-in-taxes


...Immigrants illegally in the U.S. collectively contribute nearly $12 billion each year to state and local tax coffers, according to a new report that challenges recent election cycle rhetoric.

The study from the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy found that immigrants in the U.S. without legal permission kick in their billions in the form of income, property, sales or excise taxes.


There were roughly 11 million immigrants estimated to be in the U.S. illegally as of 2013, according to the report. And each and every state collects at least a few million dollars from tax payments made by such immigrants each year, ranging from Montana's $2.2 million to California's $3.2 billion...

This number will increase drastically once they are given a pathway to citizenship. Furthermore, these resilient and productive people are less likely to use welfare services than the native population.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/20/news/economy/immigration-myths/


Undocumented immigrants do not qualify for welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, and most other public benefits. Most of these programs require proof of legal immigration status and under the 1996 welfare law, even legal immigrants cannot receive these benefits until they have been in the United States for more than five years.


Non-citizen immigrant adults and children are about 25% less likely to be signed up for Medicaid than their poor native-born equivalents and are also 37% less likely to receive food stamps, according to a 2013 study by the Cato Institute.


Citizen children of illegal immigrants -- often derogatorily referred to as "anchor babies" -- do qualify for social benefits. Also, undocumented immigrants are eligible for schooling and emergency medical care. Currently, the average unlawful immigrant household costs taxpayers $14,387 per household, according to a recent report by The Heritage Foundation. But in its 2013 "Immigration Myths and Facts" report, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says most economists see providing these benefits as an investment for the future, when these children become workers and taxpayers.


A CBO report on the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 concluded that a path to legalization for immigrants would increase federal revenues by $48 billion. Such a plan would see $23 billion in increased costs from the use of public services, but ultimately, it would produce a surplus of $25 billion for government coffers, CBO said.Finally, in regards to crime, research shows that immigrants, both legal and not, are less likely to commit crimes than naturalized citizens.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mythical-connection-between-immigrants-and-crime-1436916798


They might start by pointing out that numerous studies going back more than a century have shown that immigrants—regardless of nationality or legal status—are less likely than the native population to commit violent crimes or to be incarcerated. A new report from the Immigration Policy Center notes that while the illegal immigrant population in the U.S. more than tripled between 1990 and 2013 to more than 11.2 million, “FBI data indicate that the violent crime rate declined 48%—which included falling rates of aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and murder. Likewise, the property crime rate fell 41%, including declining rates of motor vehicle theft, larceny/robbery, and burglary.”


A separate IPC paper from 2007 explains that this is not a function of well-behaved high-skilled immigrants from India and China offsetting misdeeds of Latin American newcomers. The data show that “for every ethnic group without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants,” according to the report. “This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the undocumented population.”


It also holds true in states with large populations of illegal residents. A 2008 report by the Public Policy Institute of California found that immigrants are underrepresented in the prison system. “The incarceration rate for foreign-born adults is 297 per 100,000 in the population, compared [with] 813 per 100,000 for U.S.-born adults,” the study concludes. “The foreign-born, who make up roughly 35% of California’s adult population, constitute 17% of the state prison population.”

In other words, we can cut crime, cut spending, improve the economy, create more jobs and generally make the US a better place by welcoming these immigrants with open arms. I personally love the Mexican people... especially their women...

http://www.traveltheworldfans.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/mexican-sexy-girl.jpg

Send her over please!

[MisterVeritis]

It's called sarcasm.

The delusion I see is the nonsense you're spouting. The chicken little thing about the sky falling is amusing though. Maybe you could get a placard made and walk the streets with it.
Adolph Hitler wrote Mein Kampf. It outlined his dreams, visions, and plans.
Hillary Clinton and her many minions wrote emails. Lots and lots of emails. They contain her dreams, visions, and plans.
For starters...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqJWL3FLVug

[Common Sense]

Adolph Hitler wrote Mein Kampf. It outlined his dreams, visions, and plans.
Hillary Clinton and her many minions wrote emails. Lots and lots of emails. They contain her dreams, visions, and plans.
For starters...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqJWL3FLVug

Bwhahahahaaaa.....good one, Chicken Little.

[MisterVeritis]

I think everyone will be spared misery. America is already a fantastic place to live and work - one of the freest countries in the world, with a robust and strong civil and legal system, low crime, low corruption, lots of natural resources, and lots of space for accommodating a greater population. There are some things that need to be improved, and it isn't perfect, but overall it is a wonderful country, and each and every American ought to take at least some pride in it.

As for taxes, I am not concerned about that in the least. Research shows that immigration is a net benefit to tax revenues.

This number will increase drastically once they are given a pathway to citizenship. Furthermore, these resilient and productive people are less likely to use welfare services than the native population.

Finally, in regards to crime, research shows that immigrants, both legal and not, are less likely to commit crimes than naturalized citizens.

In other words, we can cut crime, cut spending, improve the economy, create more jobs and generally make the US a better place by welcoming these immigrants with open arms. I personally love the Mexican people... especially their women...

Send her over please!
You are lying. You know it. If the illegals are going to make this nation so amazing why haven't they done it for their countries?

[Peter1469]

I think everyone will be spared misery. America is already a fantastic place to live and work - one of the freest countries in the world, with a robust and strong civil and legal system, low crime, low corruption, lots of natural resources, and lots of space for accommodating a greater population. There are some things that need to be improved, and it isn't perfect, but overall it is a wonderful country, and each and every American ought to take at least some pride in it.

As for taxes, I am not concerned about that in the least. Research shows that immigration is a net benefit to tax revenues.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-01/study-undocumented-immigrants-pay-billions-in-taxes



This number will increase drastically once they are given a pathway to citizenship. Furthermore, these resilient and productive people are less likely to use welfare services than the native population.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/20/news/economy/immigration-myths/

Finally, in regards to crime, research shows that immigrants, both legal and not, are less likely to commit crimes than naturalized citizens.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mythical-connection-between-immigrants-and-crime-1436916798



In other words, we can cut crime, cut spending, improve the economy, create more jobs and generally make the US a better place by welcoming these immigrants with open arms. I personally love the Mexican people... especially their women...

http://www.traveltheworldfans.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/mexican-sexy-girl.jpg

Send her over please!

I imagine we could do well if that was all we got. We don't need uneducated people who are not qualified to hold the doors open at Target. We don't need terrorists.

We should carefully consider what we need to help the US. Oh, I approve to her above.

[MisterVeritis]

Bwhahahahaaaa.....good one, Chicken Little.
You have no stake Canadian. But what happens to Canada when the US economy collapses?

[exploited]

You are lying. You know it. If the illegals are going to make this nation so amazing why haven't they done it for their countries?

Because their countries do not provide the opportunities that the US does.

As for the accusations of lying, well, I don't know what to tell you. The research is very clear.

[Peter1469]

You have no stake Canadian. But what happens to Canada when the US economy collapses?

They become a victim to rouge Americans.

[MisterVeritis]

Because their countries do not provide the opportunities that the US does.

As for the accusations of lying, well, I don't know what to tell you. The research is very clear.
The researchers had an agenda. It was not pro-citizen.

You are smart enough that you do not need to see through it. And yet you still "fall for it." Do you want to see what the US will look like after a few years of open borders? Walk across the bridge in El Paso.

[exploited]

The researchers had an agenda. It was not pro-citizen.

You are smart enough that you do not need to see through it. And yet you still "fall for it." Do you want to see what the US will look like after a few years of open borders? Walk across the bridge in El Paso.

What specific aspect of the research that I linked do you find troublesome? The conclusions, because you disagree with them? Or did you actually have a valid methodological concern?

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/303/18087545533_a2ca788f53_b.jpg

What is the problem?

[MisterVeritis]

What specific aspect of the research that I linked do you find troublesome? The conclusions, because you disagree with them? Or did you actually have a valid methodological concern?

What is the problem?
Yes. Their agenda is to make open borders appear to be positive. But it isn't. Nor can it be. They lied. And you choose to believe them. Why do you? Do you benefit from illegal immigrants?

[Common Sense]

You have no stake Canadian. But what happens to Canada when the US economy collapses?

So I have no stake, then you ask what happens if the US economy collapses? Maybe you should rethink that post.

[del]

They become a victim to rouge Americans.

indeed, bands of roving cosmetologists have their evil way with them.

[Green Arrow]

I didn't argue it. I asked you who you voted for, just like I asked Green Arrow who they voted for.

Oh, you did? Sorry, it's hard for me to keep track of threads when I'm like 30 pages behind. I wasn't ignoring it.

I supported McCain in '08, but couldn't vote (only just turned 17 a month before). I voted for Obama in '12 and will vote for Jill Stein this year.

[Common Sense]

indeed, bands of roving cosmetologists have their evil way with them.

Sounds like last weekend.

[MisterVeritis]

So I have no stake, then you ask what happens if the US economy collapses? Maybe you should rethink that post.
I shall leave it as is. It should be simple for you to answer. You are pushing hard to establish the conditions for our collapse. How does our collapse benefit you?

[Common Sense]

I shall leave it as is. It should be simple for you to answer. You are pushing hard to establish the conditions for our collapse. How does our collapse benefit you?

I contend that your premise is flawed, hyperbolic and bordering on hysterical.

I'm not pushing for the collapse of the US. I'm pushing for a stable and sane US. The opposite of a Trump Presidency.

[exploited]

Yes. Their agenda is to make open borders appear to be positive. But it isn't. Nor can it be. They lied. And you choose to believe them. Why do you? Do you benefit from illegal immigrants?

So, because you disagree with the conclusions, your contention is that the research is invalid.

I see.

[MisterVeritis]

I contend that your premise is flawed, hyperbolic and bordering on hysterical.

I'm not pushing for the collapse of the US. I'm pushing for a stable and sane US. The opposite of a Trump Presidency.
Then you are confused. A Clinton presidency will be corrupt through and through. Given your enormous support I suppose you already know that.

[MisterVeritis]

So, because you disagree with the conclusions, your contention is that the research is invalid.

I see.
Have you ever been involved in a study where you were told the conclusion you needed to reach?

Who paid for the studies? How do those organizations benefit?

[Peter1469]

indeed, bands of roving cosmetologists have their evil way with them.

Hungry SJWs looking for hot coffee.

[Newpublius]

The Democrats aren't calling for open borders either. They discuss border security when it behooves them and will mock those employers who employ illegals while, in the same breadth, bemoaning any real effort to deport them. I love the contribution that immigrantd make, but I want the best immigrants, an immigration policy similar to Australia's Skilled Migration policy. You cannot have free immigration to welfare, that's ridiculous and absurd, fact is the current illegal aliens do all kinds of useful things. That's fantastic, but their incomes unequivocally will qualify them for Medicaid once 5 years is up (5 years is the waiting period for when a green card holder becomes Medicaid/Medical eligible).

No Western nation today has unlimited immigration or an open door policy precisely because Western nations actually do have robust welfare states, even the US. If you have limits and then simply no effort to enforce them, you wind up with the situation we have today with over 10 million illegal aliens who now reside in the country.

Give them green cards, there will be 10 million more right behond them.

[del]

Hungry SJWs looking for hot coffee.

dishonest asshats screaming rape

[MisterVeritis]

The Democrats aren't calling for open borders either. They discuss border security when it behooves them and will mock those employers who employ illegals while, in the same breadth, bemoaning any real effort to deport them. I love the contribution that immigrantd make, but I want the best immigrants, an immigration policy similar to Australia's Skilled Migration policy. You cannot have free immigration to welfare, that's ridiculous and absurd, fact is the current illegal aliens do all kinds of useful things. That's fantastic, but their incomes unequivocally will qualify them for Medicaid once 5 years is up (5 years is the waiting period for when a green card holder becomes Medicaid/Medical eligible).
Clinton, in one of her sell-out appearances, said she supports open borders. I believe her.

[Tahuyaman]

Have you ever been involved in a study where you were told the conclusion you needed to reach?

Who paid for the studies? How do those organizations benefit?

Generally liberals only respect research where they start with a conclusion then work backwards.

[Peter1469]

dishonest asshats screaming rape

Women do not appreciate you ignoring their cries.

How many women must get raped while you look the other way?

[nic34]

The Democrats aren't calling for open borders either. They discuss border security when it behooves them and will mock those employers who employ illegals while, in the same breadth, bemoaning any real effort to deport them. I love the contribution that immigrantd make, but I want the best immigrants, an immigration policy similar to Australia's Skilled Migration policy. You cannot have free immigration to welfare, that's ridiculous and absurd, fact is the current illegal aliens do all kinds of useful things. That's fantastic, but their incomes unequivocally will qualify them for Medicaid once 5 years is up (5 years is the waiting period for when a green card holder becomes Medicaid/Medical eligible).

No Western nation today has unlimited immigration or an open door policy precisely because Western nations actually do have robust welfare states, even the US. If you have limits and then simply no effort to enforce them, you wind up with the situation we have today with over 10 million illegal aliens who now reside in the country.

Give them green cards, there will be 10 million more right behond them.

In the same breadth, I would call for the apprehension and deportation of illegal employers first....

[Common Sense]

Women do not appreciate you ignoring their cries.

How many women must get raped while you look the other way?

You know, I might actually believe your disgust (unfounded or not) if you shared the same disdain for Trump's comments about sexually assaulting women.

[MisterVeritis]

You know, I might actually believe your disgust (unfounded or not) if you shared the same disdain for Trump's comments about sexually assaulting women.
Those comments were not about sexual assault. Women like to be taken by powerful men. If that was not so they wouldn't hang around them.

Are there no men left? I feel sorry for the women who have to put up with the chickified boys.

[Peter1469]

You know, I might actually believe your disgust (unfounded or not) if you shared the same disdain for Trump's comments about sexually assaulting women.

Don't confuse attacking the Clintons for support of anyone to include Trump.

For years I have been clear that I do not subscribe to the two party system. I understand that most can't conceive of any choice other than (D) or (R). Republicans here have attacked me over that position.

[exploited]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J87y3DOL11g&feature=youtu.be