Which is why the Republicans have been stacking the courts for the last decade. It's a slow process but it's getting close to a tipping point.
I'm an independent and I have to say that as much as I hate Trump this would be a tough choice for me. Other Democratic candidates not so much.
Concur. A) As shown in other threads, none of the "Trump Wall" has been put in place. The Legislative Branch is holding up funding, as is its right. B) Even when a sitting court erroneously call something a "muslim ban", it's able to be ruled against. The Judicial Branch is holding up enactment, as is its right. C) Agencies within the Executive Branch can and have investigated the President's actions. They are ensuring he is not taking illegal imperial powers, as is their charter. That said, I don't like supermajorities or "owning all three branches of government". If Trump not getting what he wants done because Pelosi et al. are throwing a fit, I'm ok with that. Gridlock supports the status quo, which by-and-large I'm better with than rampant progressivism or warmongering. I'd rather have a presidency blocked from doing whatever it wants (even if I'd agree with some of the legislation) than what we had in 2010 and still aren't recovered fully from.
hey it’s great. Just weird that so many people say they are independent- so many - yet the party is zilch and a total non factor. It’s just interesting to me.
Personally, I think it's partially because of the dilution of not being a major party. Just look at 2016...the 3rd party vote (even without representation in debates and funding for commercials and the like) was 5%, and many of the candidates weren't even on the ballots in all states. The differences between Evan McMullin and Gary Johnson aren't nearly as wide as, say, Hillary and Bernie or Jeb and Trump. But they consolidate, while the 3rd-party parties don't. Edit to clarify: If there was a "Warmonger party" and a "Fiscal Responsibility Party" and a "Tea Party" and a "Trump Party" and an "Evangelical Party", rather than the Elephants, I think you could end up in similar levels of irrelevancy. But they don't do that, unlike the Green/Libertarian/Independent/Constitution/etc.
Not everyone wants, or needs, to commit to one gang over another to feel like they are somebody. From an independents view. It is the people that vote 100% of the time for one party/gang that can not think for themselves
Listen I love the idea of being an Independent. I just don’t get what’s wrong with the party if so many people claim to be one. Nobody says in conversation “I’m a republican/democrat”. You never hear it. But people love to say they are Independent. Look at this place. Happens all the time. Yet every four years this huge population can’t muster together a candidate or make money. It’s just interesting to me.
If you still do not understand how being an independent thinker does not fit into belonging to only one party. I only have one thing to say to you. Think about it.
An “independent thinker”? Huh? I’ve been pretty clear what I’m talking about - over and over- if YOU cannot understand, there’s not much else I can explain.
I think there is a lack of agreement on terminology here. Independent can either mean a member of the Independent Party (a very minor party) or a person who claims not to be affiliated with any party. Further muddying the waters, most of the people in the latter, larger group vote as if they are partisan members of one of the two major parties. Like someone who claims to be asexual but in reality has sex with sheep. barfo
Born and raised in LO, and consequently have always had a few Jewish friends. I know next to nothing about "being Jewish", or even what that means. But you imply that "they all think alike" and that's erroneous and insulting.
The conundrum of being a true Independent Voter is you have to vote for someone who's just going to do what they want to do, no matter what you or anyone else wants.