Since one of the posters asked me to clarify a statement I made about shedding 28 years worth of chains up on North Denver this morning, I figure I would come clean. Today I changed my voter registration from Republican to "No Party". The GOP is simply nowhere close to what it was when I registered right after my 18th birthday. My leanings seem to be more Libertarian, but Oklahoma does not recognize a third party. Your are either R, D, or "No Party".
As I mentioned on Facebook, it seems like our Oklahoma legislators and the "far right" candidates for national office are engaged in some sort of medieval group-think that I simply cannot identify with.
I realize I now forgo the right to vote in Oklahoma primary elections. I'll give that up so I don't have to be associated with backwards (yes, mouth-breathing is apt, oxygen-abusing is another) legislators who have no problem caving easily to the liquor lobby, yet they write stupid statement legislation which, in effect, declares Oklahoma a "pro-life" state, or gives teachers guidance about controversial subjects, or telling a 21 year old they must wait until the following morning to enjoy their first legal drink.
Who are these absolute nut-bags who have hijacked the GOP? Have we not more pressing issues in the Oklahoma legislature?
I'm fully convinced that short of Tom Coburn, there's very few, if any GOP leaders or legislators who realize that true fiscal conservatism would dictate not borrowing into oblivion. Republicans are just as culpable as their Democrat brethren in looting the Treasury.
I simply see that the two party system has become a scapegoat for America's ruling class to keep bilking the taxpayer and to be able to have someone else to blame for it.
I've threatened this for several years but resisted so I could continue to vote in primary elections. After seeing Santorum rise in the polls and seeing who he is working for votes and reading about one stupid piece of legislation after another, I realized the Repbublican party no longer represents most of the ideology I hold dear. Either that or it was the pulled pork at BurnCo that made me snap.
If I thought it would do any good, I'd tell you to forward that to someone.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 22, 2012, 03:53:20 PM
Since one of the posters asked me to clarify a statement I made about shedding 28 years worth of chains up on North Denver this morning, I figure I would come clean. Today I changed my voter registration from Republican to "No Party". The GOP is simply nowhere close to what it was when I registered right after my 18th birthday. My leanings seem to be more Libertarian, but Oklahoma does not recognize a third party. Your are either R, D, or "No Party".
As I mentioned on Facebook, it seems like our Oklahoma legislators and the "far right" candidates for national office are engaged in some sort of medieval group-think that I simply cannot identify with.
I realize I now forgo the right to vote in Oklahoma primary elections. I'll give that up so I don't have to be associated with backwards (yes, mouth-breathing is apt, oxygen-abusing is another) legislators who have no problem caving easily to the liquor lobby, yet they write stupid statement legislation which, in effect, declares Oklahoma a "pro-life" state, or gives teachers guidance about controversial subjects, or telling a 21 year old they must wait until the following morning to enjoy their first legal drink.
Who are these absolute nut-bags who have hijacked the GOP? Have we not more pressing issues in the Oklahoma legislature?
I'm fully convinced that short of Tom Coburn, there's very few, if any GOP leaders or legislators who realize that true fiscal conservatism would dictate not borrowing into oblivion. Republicans are just as culpable as their Democrat brethren in looting the Treasury.
I simply see that the two party system has become a scapegoat for America's ruling class to keep bilking the taxpayer and to be able to have someone else to blame for it.
I've threatened this for several years but resisted so I could continue to vote in primary elections. After seeing Santorum rise in the polls and seeing who he is working for votes and reading about one stupid piece of legislation after another, I realized the Repbublican party no longer represents most of the ideology I hold dear. Either that or it was the pulled pork at BurnCo that made me snap.
I remember you saying you were weighing that option. And since you've done so, I may weigh my option to switch from (D) to no party. Like you, I assigned myself (D) out of high school, only because I had to choose and at the time, I chose (D) because, of all things, it was the first letter alphabetically. I'm a social liberal but fiscally, I'm closer to a conservative. You might call me a libertarian.
Some of you might call me something else.
;D
Quote from: Townsend on February 22, 2012, 03:57:05 PM
If I thought it would do any good, I'd tell you to forward that to someone.
OOOO, send it to Robby Bell's mom. She'll know what to do.
Quote from: Townsend on February 22, 2012, 03:57:05 PM
If I thought it would do any good, I'd tell you to forward that to someone.
I've already drafted a message
I'm going to fly it into the capital building er um, email my legislators.
Seriously, I am working on a draft to send every Republican in the Oklahoma House & Senate. I also plan to send letters to our national delegation from Oklahoma. Perhaps if others start leaving the GOP in droves, someone will notice and ask why.
Quote from: Townsend on February 22, 2012, 04:06:45 PM
OOOO, send it to Robby Bell's mom. She'll know what to do.
Oh, you mean the lady who didn't want her taxes raised but had no problem shilling about looking for a municipality to provide millions in property subsidies to relocate her amusement park?
Quote from: Conan71 on February 22, 2012, 04:16:51 PM
Oh, you mean the lady who didn't want her taxes raised but had no problem shilling about looking for a municipality to provide millions in property subsidies to relocate her amusement park?
Yes, that one. She's a wonderful example of what can be done for the Republican Party...and child rearing.
Dang it conan. I was thinking about becoming a republican just so I could hang out with you.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 22, 2012, 03:53:20 PM
I'm fully convinced that short of Tom Coburn, there's very few, if any GOP leaders or legislators who realize that true fiscal conservatism would dictate not borrowing into oblivion. Republicans are just as culpable as their Democrat brethren in looting the Treasury.
You must have missed this guy: (http://www.westernjournalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/image5382.jpg)
Quote from: YoungTulsan on February 22, 2012, 04:48:38 PM
You must have missed this guy: (http://www.westernjournalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/image5382.jpg)
He's not a Libertarian, he's an idiot with a fundamental inability to understand basic economics or the banking system.
I changed my affiliation to Independent a while back. Mostly so that when I am in a discussion I am not immediately pegged with one extreme view or another. You say one thing and then its as if they know your entire leaning on every issue and cease to listen. Some of my Democrat friends think I am very Conservative on many issues and some of my Republican friends think I am very Liberal on many issues. I don't like either party entirely and yes in this state in particular it seems like the Conervative Republicans in power have just gone absolutely batty on so many things. Perhaps some day if enough of us go "no party" or Independent we can make our voices heard, or at least cause both parties to court us and listen.
Quote from: Hoss on February 22, 2012, 04:00:59 PM
I remember you saying you were weighing that option. And since you've done so, I may weigh my option to switch from (D) to no party. Like you, I assigned myself (D) out of high school, only because I had to choose and at the time, I chose (D) because, of all things, it was the first letter alphabetically. I'm a social liberal but fiscally, I'm closer to a conservative. You might call me a libertarian.
Some of you might call me something else.
;D
I may just do the same. While I may have different ideas as to what our country would ideally look like than most around here, it's fairly clear that apart from a few exceptions everybody with a D or an R after their name is beholden to special interests. At this point, the main thing that keeps me voting for Democrats (on the national level anyway) is that I get the sense that the country turns to smile slightly more slowly with them in charge than it does with Republicans in charge.
And don't get me started on Ron freakin' Paul. He often says nice things, but he seems to be a troglodyte at heart. It's just that he wants the state government to repress you instead of the federal government. I guess that's marginally better than the others. Would be nice if he could grasp the fact that we are no longer on the gold standard, but that's a lesson the vast majority of our leaders could stand to learn.
Anyway, until we reform our elections, we can change our registrations all we want and it won't make a damn bit of difference between the gerrymandering and the ease of buying off all the candidates up front in what few competitive districts remain.
I was not so comfortable when my party was running guys from New England that had little in common with the rest of the country. I still consider myself a moderate whose had the carpet under my feet yanked to the right. I waited patiently to see if the party would at least move geographically to the center and it has. Philosophically the party still yells left but in operation it is more pragmatic. Clinton changed welfare. Obama has yielded on liberal principles as well otherwise the left wouldn't be so mad at him.
It doesn't surprise me that many moderate republicans (socially liberal-fiscally conservative) also feel uncomfortable with movement their party has made. This was always the party of business. Now it is the business of politics. One gets the feeling they would sell out the country to get power back. Moderates have waited patiently to see if it is an aberration and it is not. It is currently a witches brew of money, craziness, religion, 50's moral values and hatred.
I'm too unmotivated (lazy) to change party affiliation to independent and too optimistic that my party can reform itself. If ever there was a good time for a third party though, that made sense, this seems it. Until then we're all stuck. This will take a good decade to bleed out of the system and start over.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 22, 2012, 04:43:40 PM
Dang it conan. I was thinking about becoming a republican just so I could hang out with you.
Do you also have a bridge for sale? Waterfront property? ...
Quote from: TheArtist on February 22, 2012, 05:06:03 PM
I changed my affiliation to Independent a while back. Mostly so that when I am in a discussion I am not immediately pegged with one extreme view or another. You say one thing and then its as if they know your entire leaning on every issue and cease to listen. Some of my Democrat friends think I am very Conservative on many issues and some of my Republican friends think I am very Liberal on many issues. I don't like either party entirely and yes in this state in particular it seems like the Conervative Republicans in power have just gone absolutely batty on so many things. Perhaps some day if enough of us go "no party" or Independent we can make our voices heard, or at least cause both parties to court us and listen.
Unless the "No Party" group can put up a viable candidate, "you" are guaranteeing that both the Ds and Rs will put up more extreme candidates. There's a lot I don't care for with the current crop of Rs but I am unable to align with the Ds. In order to have
any say, I'll stay registered R and
try to help.
If you are a registered Democrat in Oklahoma you basically already have registered as "No Party"
Conan,
I did the same thing only D because at the time, they were the only ones that had primaries. In recent years, I have been thinking seriously about changing to R to get some choices in the primaries that might make a little bit of difference. Except the hijacking of the R is so complete in this state that it seems to be futile - as evidenced by your action today.
Both D and R have become so "buy out" oriented - as in who can they get to buy them out - it is very tough to thread our way through the maze of what these guys really are up to. What it all seems to boil down to is grabbing what they can, so they are ok, then it doesn't really matter what happens to the rest of us.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 22, 2012, 07:49:25 PM
What it all seems to boil down to is grabbing what they can, so they are ok, then it doesn't really matter what happens to the rest of us.
Threadwinner!
I kept making excuse after excuse to not change affiliation and the reason you stated for wanting to register R is precisely why I hadn't done this a few years back. You definitely have more power as a voter being able to vote in Republican primaries in Oklahoma, for sure. I've made this public (here and FB) for no other reason than I'm hoping other disenfranchised moderates will begin to see they might have power if they band together. Look at what a rag-tag disorganized group like the Tea Party accomplished in terms of pushing their agenda. The main problem I've got with the Tea Party is they are so damn interwoven with the Christian fundies it's made any of their policy issues hard for me to get on board with simply because I look at standard-bearers like Michelle Bachmann and I'm put off by the movement. The Occupy Movement is hardly independent, they are interwoven in with far left ideology, yet they've commanded a lot of media attention.
Personally, I feel like a 60%'er (the 60% who do not identify as deeply conservative or deeply liberal). I hear of the big conservative talk show entertainers calling social liberals like myself faux conservatives. Really? I think people who pander to the deeply religious segment of the party to get the emotional vote and who preach fiscal conservatism to people like me but continually vote for big government programs, more government spending and plum contracts for their wealthy and powerful constituents are repugnant.
I agree very much with what The Artist said in his earlier post, that having a D or R seems to automatically peg you instantly as either conservative or liberal. If I post on Tim Gilpin's FB wall when he's on one of his deeply liberal rants, it never fails, someone starts in about how I get my talking points from Glen Beck or Limpbag which couldn't be further from the truth.
For those of us who are put off by deeply partisan politics, we need to start looking past our differences and focusing on our similarities. That's how the political scene and society could return to normalcy. We are constantly inundated with reminders of how we are all different. I'm white, she's black, he's yellow, she's Hispanic. I'm Anglo, that person is Creek Indian. Hell, we are all humans before we have any other sort of tribal identity. Differences are costing us as a nation.
I give you a lot of smile as there's some things you say on here which just blow my mind, yet, I suspect there's probably 20% of your overall ideology I'd disagree with which means there's probably 80% of common interests there. I've gotten to know every regular poster on here on somewhat of a personal basis via forum lunches, happy hours, etc. They've been guests in my home and I in theirs. Even though some of them have completely different political views, what I have in common with them far outweighs what I don't.
I had intended to simply get a haircut after lunch, but my guy near 15th & Lewis wasn't in and wouldn't be for 1/2 an hour. I thought "How to kill half an hour? Time to quit talking about it and time to do it." On my way to the election board, I thought of "St. Ronald's" words: "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, it left me." I suspect he might be thinking along those lines if he saw what the GOP has morphed into by bastardizing his concepts into something he wouldn't recognize. It's said he always regretted his deficit spending, but he was left with little choice.
I joined the Republican Party prior to voting in the 1984 elections when I was 18 and a freshman at OSU. The reason I chose Republican? President Reagan, in my mind, had gone a long way in not only turning the economic fortunes of the country around, but he had lifted the spirits of most Americans. To many my age at the time, he also seemed human enough that he could have been anyone's grandfather.
If anyone thinks I'm going a bit far with my esteem of him as a great uniter and communicator, explain the utter shellacking he gave Walter Mondale in the landslide of '84. What did Mondale get? 14 electoral votes or something like that. I think he got Minnesota and D.C. It's unfortunate his legacy was tainted by some of his appointees with Iran-Contra and some other issues. If anything, he at least gave us the sort of morale boost we needed in the 1980's.
As for me, I don't like who is representing the Republican party these days and I no longer like what the party represents.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 22, 2012, 10:01:12 PM
If anyone thinks I'm going a bit far with my esteem of him as a great uniter and communicator, explain the utter shellacking he gave Walter Mondale in the landslide of '84. What did Mondale get? 14 electoral votes or something like that. I think he got Minnesota and D.C. It's unfortunate his legacy was tainted by some of his appointees with Iran-Contra and some other issues. If anything, he at least gave us the sort of morale boost we needed in the 1980's.
Normally I would launch into one of my Reagan tirades, but you've made me realize that it's water under the bridge. The past can't be undone, so all we can do is move forward from where we are. I agree that most of us have many goals and ideas in common, and working together on those would definitely be an improvement over the status quo. It's just hard to agree to disagree on the points we disagree about for long enough to see any of our common will be done in this hyperpartisan environment.
So you cut in run instead of working within' to change it? Shameful!
Quote from: Teatownclown on February 23, 2012, 09:11:29 AM
So you cut in run instead of working within' to change it? Shameful!
Not at all. He can work to change by not being registered R. And probably be at least if not more effective.
It has been a long time since I went to any (political) party meetings (D) - at that time, for both D and R it was strictly a self-congratulatory festival involving lots positive reinforcement of the accepted dogma. No room whatsoever for any independent thought or questioning of ideas, let alone ideals. Wow, now that I re-read, it sounds a lot like some of the church's I have been to... If you were one of the whales - big contributor - then your ideas were the ones that were acceptable.
Outside the formal party structure, he can comment without being associated with the failed policies that naturally adhere to membership in either - that "guilt by association" label attached because one is either R or D. And posting here (and wherever else - FB?), likely to reach a much wider audience to try to influence.
Overall, very constructive move. I probably should do the same....
Quote from: Teatownclown on February 23, 2012, 09:11:29 AM
So you cut in run instead of working within' to change it? Shameful!
The only way you change the outcome of a popularity contest is getting the contestants to realize their base of support is dwindling. Clearly elected officials and those crafting party platforms have miscalculated that the majority of Republicans desire legislated morality and a new tax cut and new debt at every turn. I think many sit by silently in disgust. As long as the rolls are staying roughly the same or incrementally-growing every year, they assume all the party members are in lockstep. If they see a mass exodus, then they have to finally ask why.
Sorry, can't be associated with such backwardass thinking and medieval logic, not good for the soul.
And again, it doesn't stop here. There's a letter being drafted to the Tulsa County and Oklahoma GOP party leadership, our national delegation, and (R) state legislators.
They can either consider that my frustration reflects that of many or I'm a lone disaffected nut. If they choose to ignore people like me, they do so at their own peril of job security.
Isn't that where leadership comes in? My view of leadership is not what is generally taught in "leadership courses" where status quo and conformity are preached. That is administrative/directorial leadership which was exhibited by the Italian captain. Yeh, he's the leader till something goes wrong. It creates forgettable mayors and ineffective legislators.
Exceptional leadership is exhibited by those who espouse what is usually not the most popular view, but the most reasonable and well thought out and held with conviction regardless of the prevailing views. It explains how the fuhrer rose to power, but also how Reagan commandeered his party. Right or wrong, the leadership of the Republican party now is poll driven, administrative type leadership. Which is no leadership at all during critical times. I'm not picking on just one party, its a currently accepted behavior in all organizations right now that real leaders are castigated, marginalized and often punished. It takes guts to stand up to it. I think guys like Christie recognize that and are committed to working from the inside rather than compromising their beliefs to get the nomination.
Leaving ones party is tantamount to passive aggressive tactics (when they see their ranks diminishing, they'll reform). I never saw you as a passive aggressive Conan. I understand your disgust but its guys like you who could reform the party.
Quote from: AquaMan on February 23, 2012, 10:20:08 AM
Isn't that where leadership comes in? My view of leadership is not what is generally taught in "leadership courses" where status quo and conformity are preached. That is administrative/directorial leadership which was exhibited by the Italian captain. Yeh, he's the leader till something goes wrong. It creates forgettable mayors and ineffective legislators.
Exceptional leadership is exhibited by those who espouse what is usually not the most popular view, but the most reasonable and well thought out and held with conviction regardless of the prevailing views. It explains how the fuhrer rose to power, but also how Reagan commandeered his party. Right or wrong, the leadership of the Republican party now is poll driven, administrative type leadership. Which is no leadership at all during critical times. I'm not picking on just one party, its a currently accepted behavior in all organizations right now that real leaders are castigated, marginalized and often punished. It takes guts to stand up to it. I think guys like Christie recognize that and are committed to working from the inside rather than compromising their beliefs to get the nomination.
Leaving ones party is tantamount to passive aggressive tactics (when they see their ranks diminishing, they'll reform). I never saw you as a passive aggressive Conan. I understand your disgust but its guys like you who could reform the party.
You could interpret it as P/A behavior. You could also view it as removing a base they blindly depend on one brick at at time. Interesting, I was just responding to a post on FB by a friend of mine who did the same thing I did a few weeks ago, unbeknownst to me until this morning.
Specifically, we are getting stupid religion-based statement legislation in the OK legislature primarily because the mouth-breathers in OKC believe all Republicans want it that way. I can make a statement away from the party and as I said, I intend to foment change by letting them know why they can depend more and more on thinking Republicans to start leaving the party. Certainly I've given up the right at the polls to try and vote better candidates in the primaries. Perhaps more free-thinking IND's will start running for the legislature. It's hard to get traction with IND on the national level, but much easier on the state and local level.
I've thought more and more what the last big push was that made my mind up. Governor Fallin promising another income tax cut, then learning we face a $46mm shortfall due to tax credits given for new oil drilling activity in the state. Governor Fallin says personal income tax cuts will attract new business. I don't see how it can when the legislature is bent on authoring and passing legislation which makes Oklahoma look more like Victorian England every day.
I don't want my name associated with that sort of mentality.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 23, 2012, 10:50:10 AM
I don't want my name associated with that sort of mentality.
Until they're gone or we move out of state, we will be associated with it.
"You live in Oklahoma? What the Hell is wrong with you guys?"
Quote from: Townsend on February 23, 2012, 11:13:20 AM
Until they're gone or we move out of state, we will be associated with it.
"You live in Oklahoma? What the Hell is wrong with you guys?"
Or we start voting them out instead of continuing the same old stuff....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 23, 2012, 11:32:35 AM
Or we start voting them out instead of continuing the same old stuff....
Tried to cover that under the "until they're gone".
I'm afraid we're in this for at least a decade. Its not just us. Virginia wants women who are considering abortion to have transverse vaginal ultrasounds, not because of a doctors suggestion, but for political reasons. I suppose if they wanted to watch it all on youtube they could legislate that as well and still get re-elected. This kind of craziness is like the influenza. Widespread and treatable but its too late for the flu shots. It just has to run its course.
Quote from: AquaMan on February 23, 2012, 11:57:24 AM
It just has to run its course.
Kinda like the far-right nationalists did in 1920's Germany?
Quote from: AquaMan on February 23, 2012, 11:57:24 AM
Virginia wants women who are considering abortion to have transverse vaginal ultrasounds
That's not really much different than our existing ultrasound law, unless I'm remembering it incorrectly.
Quote from: nathanm on February 23, 2012, 01:26:02 PM
That's not really much different than our existing ultrasound law, unless I'm remembering it incorrectly.
Patrick, I'm not ready to make a direct correlation with teapartiers, conservatives and Nazis. I feel our craziness is more religious than party insistent.
Nathan, my understanding is that an external ultrasound was offered to the Virginia lawmakers but they insisted on an intra-vaginal ultra-sound (for a clearer picture). Since it was not with consent of the woman but at the command of the law, it is effectively legal rape for political reasons. I am not familiar with OK's law as regards this issue.
Quote from: AquaMan on February 23, 2012, 01:39:50 PM
Nathan, my understanding is that an external ultrasound was offered to the Virginia lawmakers but they insisted on an intra-vaginal ultra-sound (for a clearer picture).
The Virginia law does not specifically require transvaginal ultrasounds. However, it does require the doctor to describe the fetus in some detail, which is apparently only possible with a transvaginal ultrasound in the first couple of months of a pregnancy. What I've been told is that right around 10 weeks is when they can start getting a useful picture from a regular ultrasound.
Unfortunately, the emergence of any tertiary party is no longer possible. It has been tried over and over again, but it always ends in destruction through a collaboration of both ruling parties and the media.
The philosophical difference and divergence in the two parties swings like individual pendulums, sometimes in sync, sometimes in opposition. The distance from the middle is an indicator of leadership.
Close together=strong leader.
Far apart=leadership vacuum.
In times of strong leadership from both parties we see collaboration and centrist philosophy. When there is a leadership vacuum both parties attempt to dominate by moving towards the outside where most of the passion lies. We start to see wild legislation designed more for political statement than for purpose.
As a whole the natural movement (liberal/conservative) over time is to shift incrementally towards more liberal policy. With each irrevocable entitlement there is no other option, until the inevitable collapse.
I am a Libertarian. No matter what a politicians party, I will tend to support those who do not promote slavery. That is to say that they are not there to purchase votes by taking from one man and giving to another. Because I believe that no man has a right to the life of another through force, this causes me to pull the lever for more republicans than democrats.
Because the option of participation in Oklahoma outside of the two parties does not exist, I register republican, because it gives me the best chance of participation in this state. Like Conan, many candidates disgust me, and I have no problem expressing that through correspondence and participation in political discourse. Unlike Conan, I refuse to give up what little control I have, and I would urge Conan to rethink his decision.
If a home no longer exists for Conan in the republican party then I would urge him to register as a democrat.
Conan is one of the most intelligent members of this forum IMO, and whether you agree with his political opinions or not, you must admit that he applies reason well, because of that his vote in primaries (no matter what party) will be guided by that reason, and therefore is very important to the process.
Subtracting yourself from a portion of the process diminishes your ability to change the very things (and people) that you disagree with. The more chances you have to vote on a candidate, the more power you have.
D or R does not define you, it just gives you the power to define them!
Quote from: Gaspar on February 23, 2012, 02:54:40 PM
Unfortunately, the emergence of any tertiary party is no longer possible. It has been tried over and over again, but it always ends in destruction through a collaboration of both ruling parties and the media.
That's where you're wrong. It's perfectly possible, it just requires real reform in how we conduct our elections. It seems like something all of us who don't feel well represented by the two parties could cooperate on.
Quote from: nathanm on February 23, 2012, 03:22:54 PM
That's where you're wrong. It's perfectly possible, it just requires real reform in how we conduct our elections. It seems like something all of us who don't feel well represented by the two parties could cooperate on.
That and if you can keep the over-zealous moon bats away from the media so they can't try and pin the movement as a bunch of mental defectives, that would go a long way in terms of credibility. Any alternative movement seems to be quickly dismissed as "crazy" or "too out of step with reality".
We've seen how the Tea Party has been characterized as overly-religious, gun-toting tax evaders and Occupiers as aimless slackers. Though I'm not really sure the Occupiers are a political movement so much as a social movement of sorts.
What's your take?
Quote from: Conan71 on February 23, 2012, 03:30:03 PM
That and if you can keep the over-zealous moon bats away from the media so they can't try and pin the movement as a bunch of mental defectives, that would go a long way in terms of credibility. Any alternative movement seems to be quickly dismissed as "crazy" or "too out of step with reality".
We've seen how the Tea Party has been characterized as overly-religious, gun-toting tax evaders and Occupiers as aimless slackers. Though I'm not really sure the Occupiers are a political movement so much as a social movement of sorts.
What's your take?
You'd have to keep the media away from the moonbats too. I've seen days of coverage talking about the real housewives. Our media doesn't seem to hunt down the gold lately.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 23, 2012, 03:30:03 PM
That and if you can keep the over-zealous moon bats away from the media so they can't try and pin the movement as a bunch of mental defectives, that would go a long way in terms of credibility. Any alternative movement seems to be quickly dismissed as "crazy" or "too out of step with reality".
We've seen how the Tea Party has been characterized as overly-religious, gun-toting tax evaders and Occupiers as aimless slackers. Though I'm not really sure the Occupiers are a political movement so much as a social movement of sorts.
What's your take?
A group of individuals seeking better representation and responsibility from their politicians is BOARRRRRING.
A cult if extremists who own guns and hate this group or that group, now that's news!
Oh, and they're probably racist too.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 23, 2012, 03:45:46 PM
A group of individuals seeking better representation and responsibility from their politicians is BOARRRRRING.
A cult if extremists who own guns and hate this group or that group, now that's news!
Oh, and they're probably racist too.
"Sorry about the 'Up your's n*****' comment"
(http://unaffiliatedcritic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Cleavon-Little-and-Jessamine-Milner1.jpg)
So let's just write a manifesto and get started. Lot's of common ground here on many topics.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 23, 2012, 02:54:40 PM
Conan is one of the most intelligent members of this forum IMO,
Get a room you two.
I'm in agreement with the barbarian.
I'm a registered Republican. The Republican party in Oklahoma does very little that represents me.
I firmly believe in seperation of church/mosque/temple and state. I don't want religious icons at my capital, courthouse, or schools. I don't want anyone else's religious values to dictate our civil society.
I belive the government should not tell me how to live unless whatever it is I'm going is infringing on someone elses right to live how they please. To wit: I don't care if two women want to marry each other. I don't care if my neighbor wants to smoke pot on his porch all night. In Oklahoma this tenenant of conservatism is often ignored to facilitate my previous complaint.
I believe in the smallest, most limited government needed to get the job done. . I believe governments job is to create an environment people want to live and business want to operate - managing BOTH aspects in harmony. I believe it is a proper roll of government to create infrastructure, to educate the population, to provide necessary services to enable citizens to be or become productive members of our society, to supply a just and equitable court judicial system, and to protect the rights of its citizens. I don't think we can dump $200,000,000.00 into a museum with no clear direction and no end in site to benefit a small portion of our state. I don't think we can compete by throwing dollars at State jumping companies in an attempt to create jobs. I don't believe we can legislate morality.
I believe citizens should be involved with government and then get the hell out - not parachute into $100,000+ "jobs". I believe a government job should be a secure and respected position, but not a gauranteed profitable career path...
Sorry to cut this rant short, but I will remain a registered member of a major party in Oklahoma because without that Oklahoma does not allow me to have a voice. I would be forced to choose between the generally extreme candidates offered by the parties that are legal in Oklahoma. I'd prefer to at least cast my protest vote in the primary to show WE THE PEOPLE want an intelligent and moderate society.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 23, 2012, 02:54:40 PM
Unfortunately, the emergence of any tertiary party is no longer possible. It has been tried over and over again, but it always ends in destruction through a collaboration of both ruling parties and the media.
The philosophical difference and divergence in the two parties swings like individual pendulums, sometimes in sync, sometimes in opposition. The distance from the middle is an indicator of leadership.
Close together=strong leader.
Far apart=leadership vacuum.
In times of strong leadership from both parties we see collaboration and centrist philosophy. When there is a leadership vacuum both parties attempt to dominate by moving towards the outside where most of the passion lies. We start to see wild legislation designed more for political statement than for purpose.
As a whole the natural movement (liberal/conservative) over time is to shift incrementally towards more liberal policy. With each irrevocable entitlement there is no other option, until the inevitable collapse.
I am a Libertarian. No matter what a politicians party, I will tend to support those who do not promote slavery. That is to say that they are not there to purchase votes by taking from one man and giving to another. Because I believe that no man has a right to the life of another through force, this causes me to pull the lever for more republicans than democrats.
Because the option of participation in Oklahoma outside of the two parties does not exist, I register republican, because it gives me the best chance of participation in this state. Like Conan, many candidates disgust me, and I have no problem expressing that through correspondence and participation in political discourse. Unlike Conan, I refuse to give up what little control I have, and I would urge Conan to rethink his decision.
If a home no longer exists for Conan in the republican party then I would urge him to register as a democrat.
Conan is one of the most intelligent members of this forum IMO, and whether you agree with his political opinions or not, you must admit that he applies reason well, because of that his vote in primaries (no matter what party) will be guided by that reason, and therefore is very important to the process.
Subtracting yourself from a portion of the process diminishes your ability to change the very things (and people) that you disagree with. The more chances you have to vote on a candidate, the more power you have.
D or R does not define you, it just gives you the power to define them!
Your last sentence, while accurate in Oklahoma, shouldn't need to be.
The closed primary system is arcane (what in Oklahoma isn't?) and needs to be scrapped. Many states have moved away from this to either the Open or Semi-closed (which makes you vote your party, and if unaffiliated can vote either).
I have a little time after work tomorrow and I have to be on that side of town anyway, so I am doing the same (unregistering from my current party). I've talked about doing it for some time, and now Conan has given me wherewithal to do so after our lunch conversation at BurnCo on Wednesday.
So while you may see this as a weakening of our stance, ultimately if enough people were to do this the rolls would reflect the defection and then candidates and the voter boards would wonder why so many people aren't voting.
Oklahoma needs to change the primaries to anything other than closed. It's just silly, and is necessary for people like Conan who have become disenchanted with the party he chose. I can't say that I blame him. Most of the Democrats I follow aren't any different. There is some moon-battery on the left side of the aisle, but the level of bat$shitedness on the right since 2007 is mind-boggling.
Quote from: Hoss on February 23, 2012, 06:33:46 PM
The closed primary system is arcane (what in Oklahoma isn't?) and needs to be scrapped. Many states have moved away from this to either the Open or Semi-closed (which makes you vote your party, and if unaffiliated can vote either).
I disagree. There is no reason a D should have a say in who the Rs want to put up for the general election and vs. If one of the parties cannot field a candidate, too bad. If you choose to disenfranchise yourself by not belonging to either party that's a choice you make. Making some revisions in the requirements for an independent person to run for office may be in order.
Open primaries would be like the voters in OKC electing the Mayor of Tulsa.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 23, 2012, 07:34:20 PM
I disagree. There is no reason a D should have a say in who the Rs want to put up for the general election and vs. If one of the parties cannot field a candidate, too bad. If you choose to disenfranchise yourself by not belonging to either party that's a choice you make. Making some revisions in the requirements for an independent person to run for office may be in order.
Open primaries would be like the voters in OKC electing the Mayor of Tulsa.
If that's the case then why are so many states opting to use it, or the semi closed?
http://www.fairvote.org/congressional-and-presidential-primaries-open-closed-semi-closed-and-top-two#.T0byNvWfE0U
Quote from: Hoss on February 23, 2012, 08:12:28 PM
If that's the case then why are so many states opting to use it, or the semi closed?
I'm sure you will agree that not all political trends are the right thing to do. This one just happens to be in your "agree" category.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 23, 2012, 09:06:38 PM
I'm sure you will agree that not all political trends are the right thing to do. This one just happens to be in your "agree" category.
It forces people to choose between two dysfunctional parties in order to participate in the system. How can that make anyone feel like their vote counts?
Sent from my Atrix4G with fat fingers
Quote from: Hoss on February 23, 2012, 10:13:18 PM
It forces people to choose between two dysfunctional parties in order to participate in the system. How can that make anyone feel like their vote counts?
Please note that I said we should make some changes to make it easier for an independent to run.
With an open primary you are still choosing between two dysfunctional parties. You just don't choose which one until election day. As a non-party member you have no choice in who is running in the primary. How does that make you feel like your vote counts. The purpose of a primary is for a group of supposedly like minded people to put forth one candidate to the general election rather than a bunch. I think Tulsa had an election for mayor once with nearly a dozen candidates. How do you feel your vote counts there? If one party has an unopposed candidate that just tells me that other like minded groups or non-minded (independents) are too apathetic to put someone up. Maybe it's a feeling of futility. The general election is the real election.
I can see the logic of Conan's viewpoint that a mass exodus from the parties will cause them to wake up. Well maybe it will. In the mean time, as a non-party member, you have no say in who runs in the primary. The fact that most of us are not active enough to help choose the primary candidates is not a fault of the system.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 23, 2012, 10:55:11 PM
Please note that I said we should make some changes to make it easier for an independent to run.
With an open primary you are still choosing between two dysfunctional parties. You just don't choose which one until election day. As a non-party member you have no choice in who is running in the primary. How does that make you feel like your vote counts. The purpose of a primary is for a group of supposedly like minded people to put forth one candidate to the general election rather than a bunch. I think Tulsa had an election for mayor once with nearly a dozen candidates. How do you feel your vote counts there? If one party has an unopposed candidate that just tells me that other like minded groups or non-minded (independents) are too apathetic to put someone up. Maybe it's a feeling of futility. The general election is the real election.
I can see the logic of Conan's viewpoint that a mass exodus from the parties will cause them to wake up. Well maybe it will. In the mean time, as a non-party member, you have no say in who runs in the primary. The fact that most of us are not active enough to help choose the primary candidates is not a fault of the system.
Chicken and egg though...a lot of us aren't active in the system specifically for that reason...because we don't feel like we make a difference when we are required to be tied to a party affiliation to vote in the primary elections. Just because I have a big, fat "D" on my voter card, doesn't mean there won't be times I won't want to pick a Republican who actually sounds like he or she makes sense. Right now, most of them either need to be woken up or committed.
The evangelicals have hijacked the Republican Party. And I hate to say this Conan, but Reagan is to blame for it. He brought them in as a way to get votes; he knew he had to have them. They haven't loosed their stranglehold since.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 23, 2012, 10:55:11 PM
Please note that I said we should make some changes to make it easier for an independent to run.
With an open primary you are still choosing between two dysfunctional parties. You just don't choose which one until election day. As a non-party member you have no choice in who is running in the primary. How does that make you feel like your vote counts. The purpose of a primary is for a group of supposedly like minded people to put forth one candidate to the general election rather than a bunch. I think Tulsa had an election for mayor once with nearly a dozen candidates. How do you feel your vote counts there? If one party has an unopposed candidate that just tells me that other like minded groups or non-minded (independents) are too apathetic to put someone up. Maybe it's a feeling of futility. The general election is the real election.
I can see the logic of Conan's viewpoint that a mass exodus from the parties will cause them to wake up. Well maybe it will. In the mean time, as a non-party member, you have no say in who runs in the primary. The fact that most of us are not active enough to help choose the primary candidates is not a fault of the system.
Actually, the mayoral election of '86 drew something like 54 candidates.
Open primary is really no solution. At least if you believe that it was Democrats and the liberal media machine who helped get McCain nominated.
Quote from: Hoss on February 23, 2012, 10:59:55 PM
Chicken and egg though...a lot of us aren't active in the system specifically for that reason...because we don't feel like we make a difference when we are required to be tied to a party affiliation to vote in the primary elections. Just because I have a big, fat "D" on my voter card, doesn't mean there won't be times I won't want to pick a Republican who actually sounds like he or she makes sense. Right now, most of them either need to be woken up or committed.
I think if you really want to make a difference, you need to get involved
before the primary. Help choose the primary candidates. Either party.
I have occasionally voted for a D. Always a moderate D though. They would probably have been considered a R in a really Blue state.
Quote
The evangelicals have hijacked the Republican Party.
Yep, the thing I dislike the most about today's Republican party.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 23, 2012, 11:00:13 PM
Actually, the mayoral election of '86 drew something like 54 candidates.
Was that the primary or the general election. I remember it being a bunch but thought it got thinned a bit by the general election.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 23, 2012, 11:22:53 PM
Was that the primary or the general election. I remember it being a bunch but thought it got thinned a bit by the general election.
I think about 12 of them had sobered up by election day, that's probably what you are remembering. ;)
Quote from: Conan71 on February 23, 2012, 03:30:03 PM
That and if you can keep the over-zealous moon bats away from the media so they can't try and pin the movement as a bunch of mental defectives, that would go a long way in terms of credibility. Any alternative movement seems to be quickly dismissed as "crazy" or "too out of step with reality".
What do you expect? Any real reform directly threatens the owners of the media. Not necessarily because we're all loony communists who will nationalize the networks or anything (although I, personally, would be in favor of bringing back some ownership restrictions if we can't figure out some other way to curb their outsized influence), but because they will lose the ability to suckle at the government teat while pretending they're all excellent businesspeople for being able to show profits so often. Their influence will wane, and clearly that can't happen.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 23, 2012, 07:34:20 PM
I disagree. There is no reason a D should have a say in who the Rs want to put up for the general election and vs. If one of the parties cannot field a candidate, too bad. If you choose to disenfranchise yourself by not belonging to either party that's a choice you make. Making some revisions in the requirements for an independent person to run for office may be in order.
Open primaries would be like the voters in OKC electing the Mayor of Tulsa.
I wonder if it wouldn't help independents - if D or R could vote for I. Might be a way to crack the door open to more alternatives.