Party affiliation

[HuskerNation1]

 

Who said that I personally feared "it."

 

 

 

but my fear is that in today's internet and social media age, the divide in this country will continue to grow.

Umm...mu suggested i feared the tech revolution because it was bad for the conservative cause. When I stated I fear in todays day and age it has to do with the nasty partisanship. I actually think the tech revolution has given conservatives a voice they didnt have when the mainstream media was all there was.

 

Now...u failed to address any points i made earlier including that you are viewing this topic and my response through your partisan lens.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

I think this is an interesting topic, but my fear is that in today's internet and social media age, the divide in this country will continue to grow. There are activists groups on both sides trying to push their own agendas, and they expect their parties (the so-called Establishment) to be purists to meet their ideological desires. Those in office fear losing the support of their extremists bases that control the primary process, and thus they are afraid to "compromise" for fear of being called out. And if there is a hot-button issue they do not want to compromise on such as abortion or immigration, it's often an issue that is so polarizing that the opposing party will do everything to block that issue from moving forward.

 

What Reagan was able to do, and what any good leader should do, is lay out a vision where both sides can agree to the outcomes of that vision. If that can be agreed to, there is progress, and then its up to both sides to figure out the best way to achieve that vision. Even with that said, there are some topics where there will never be a common vision, and we have to just accept it for what it is. So getting back to Reagan, I'm not sure if he would have been quite as successful in today's social media culture, but I think his approach to governing was inclusive and not focused on pitting different minority or special interest groups against each other. Obama is the exact opposite of Reagan in this regard, as his mojo is finding those groups that will give him more votes/support and doing everything possible to help them at the detriment of the 47-49% that did not support him. If the next President can truly find a way to focus on being the President for all Americans, I think it will help to change the trend line of the bitter partisanship we have today.

The problem I go back to is the media in this country. I believe the reason the extremes keep getting worse is that each side has their media they have bought and payed for and the sheep on both sides only listen to the media that agrees with their view of the world. So, it reinforces their flawed views and they keep getting more and more extreme. Social media has caused this to explode.

 

Nobody sits back and actually tries to understand the other side's opinions and why they believe the way they do. The media and social media just allows dislike, distrust and disdain to fester and get worse.

Spot on BRB. I'm not sure what will change the divide unless we have a true transformational leader that will honestly seek to be the POTUS for all Americans.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Who said that I personally feared "it."

 

 

 

but my fear is that in today's internet and social media age, the divide in this country will continue to grow.

Umm...mu suggested i feared the tech revolution because it was bad for the conservative cause. When I stated I fear in todays day and age it has to do with the nasty partisanship. I actually think the tech revolution has given conservatives a voice they didnt have when the mainstream media was all there was.

 

Now...u failed to address any points i made earlier including that you are viewing this topic and my response through your partisan lens.

 

I would agree it is a good thing if it were actually true facts being passed around conservative circles on social media. However, the absolute crap I see being passed around by conservatives amazes me that these people actually believe this crap or think it's actually helping the cause by forwarding constantly stuff that clearly is produced for no other reason than to get a bunch of people foaming at the mouth no matter if it's true or not.

 

A perfect example of this is how I found out Scalia had died.

 

I saw a post on Facebook claiming it was a conspiracy from the left who killed him.

 

Really??? The body isn't even cold yet and you've already put out crap claiming the left killed him?

 

And people drink that up.

[Landlord]

Now...u failed to address any points i made earlier including that you are viewing this topic and my response through your partisan lens.

 

 

 

I don't have one. I'm almost entirely politically agnostic. Next.

[knapplc]

 

 

A) Why are you still affiliated with a political party?

A) So I can vote in the primary.

 

A) I will give you that as an independent, primaries are pretty much meaningless to go to. However, that pretty much is the case just living in Nebraska.

 

 

 

This is not true (that, as an Independent in Nebraska, primaries are meaningless). Not only do you have options to vote on in primaries, in Nebraska you have MORE options as an Independent than a person locked into one or the other party.

 

From the Nebraska Sec. of State's voter registration FAQ:

 

http://www.sos.ne.gov/elec/voter_info.html

 

 

Must I designate a party affiliation?

 

No, voters may choose from one of the three statewide parties currently recognized in Nebraska: Democratic, Republican and Libertarian or they may choose to not affiliate with any party by checking the non-partisan box on the application.

 

If you wish to vote in the primary election, where parties choose their nominees for state and county offices, you need to declare your party affiliation.

 

If you register without a political party affiliation, you will receive only the non-partisan ballots at a primary election.

 

Non-partisans may designate a party preference at primary elections and receive partisan ballots for the Senate and House congressional races.

 

Party designation has no bearing when voting a non-partisan ballot or in the general election.

 

 

I'll admit this is worded somewhat oddly. I don't think that's an accident.

 

What this means is that, when you go to your polling site as an Independent, you have your choice of ballots. You can vote straight Independent, without any senatorial or congressional ballots, or you can choose one or the other. So if this election you want to vote on the Democratic candidates, you can. Next election you want to vote for the Republican candidates, you can. You can change it up every time.

 

When I go to vote, they ask me what ballot I want. I choose whichever race I think my vote will have the most impact, and I vote on that race. I voted in the Fisher/Bruning battle a while ago. I voted in the Democratic primary for Obama/against Clinton in 2008.

 

As an Independent, I have more choices. I cannot imagine why anyone in Nebraska aligns with any specific party.

[Saunders]

 

 

 

 

Who said that I personally feared "it."

 

 

 

but my fear is that in today's internet and social media age, the divide in this country will continue to grow.

Umm...mu suggested i feared the tech revolution because it was bad for the conservative cause. When I stated I fear in todays day and age it has to do with the nasty partisanship. I actually think the tech revolution has given conservatives a voice they didnt have when the mainstream media was all there was.

 

Now...u failed to address any points i made earlier including that you are viewing this topic and my response through your partisan lens.

I would agree it is a good thing if it were actually true facts being passed around conservative circles on social media. However, the absolute crap I see being passed around by conservatives amazes me that these people actually believe this crap or think it's actually helping the cause by forwarding constantly stuff that clearly is produced for no other reason than to get a bunch of people foaming at the mouth no matter if it's true or not.

 

A perfect example of this is how I found out Scalia had died.

 

I saw a post on Facebook claiming it was a conspiracy from the left who killed him.

 

Really??? The body isn't even cold yet and you've already put out crap claiming the left killed him?

 

And people drink that up.

I see the same idiotic type of stuff from my liberal friends too. Whether R or D, people eat that stuff up without a bit of actual fact checking.

[Redux]

Registered Non-Partisan here. The two party system is obsolete, yet too corrupt to change. Why identify as one if you only agree with half their stances? That is why more and more people are independent.

 

Independence is what this country was founded on. Free thinking and not just siding with what a piece of paper in your wallet insists you to, that is the point of giving people a voice and the power to use it.

[HuskerNation1]

Would the two parties change drastically if we changed the primary system?

 

Think about it. Right now, all candidates are having to appeal to the extremes because that is the only group that they are trying to get votes from to become the candidate. Neither side really cares about appealing to moderates or the other side because if they don't win the primary, they obviously have no shot in the general.

 

What if a system were set up so that some how (and I don't know what that would be) it took away the motivation to pander to the extremes in the primaries?

 

I agree BRB and have suggested in other forums before that we should move to 4 regional primaries and that is it. Perhaps one in February, one in March, one in April, and one in May. The states could comprise of some deep red and blue states with some purple states so candidates do not have to play to the extremes.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

Who said that I personally feared "it."

 

 

 

but my fear is that in today's internet and social media age, the divide in this country will continue to grow.

Umm...mu suggested i feared the tech revolution because it was bad for the conservative cause. When I stated I fear in todays day and age it has to do with the nasty partisanship. I actually think the tech revolution has given conservatives a voice they didnt have when the mainstream media was all there was.

 

Now...u failed to address any points i made earlier including that you are viewing this topic and my response through your partisan lens.

 

I would agree it is a good thing if it were actually true facts being passed around conservative circles on social media. However, the absolute crap I see being passed around by conservatives amazes me that these people actually believe this crap or think it's actually helping the cause by forwarding constantly stuff that clearly is produced for no other reason than to get a bunch of people foaming at the mouth no matter if it's true or not.

 

A perfect example of this is how I found out Scalia had died.

 

I saw a post on Facebook claiming it was a conspiracy from the left who killed him.

 

Really??? The body isn't even cold yet and you've already put out crap claiming the left killed him?

 

And people drink that up.

 

 

I agree that its ridiculous about the conspiracy theories on what killed Scalia, but this crap exists on both sides. We had a whole movement (that Trump is now promoting for self-gain) that Bush 43 knew 9/11 was going to happen including how it was going to happen and chose not to do anything in order to give him a reason to invade Iraq. This was a big part of Michael Moore's big push several years back, and a whole contingent on the left supported that conspiracy.

 

With the advent of cable news, viewers who had differing opinions from the mainstream media which tilts to the left were finally offered competing views. This is what helped propel Fox to such strong ratings. We also saw the rise of talk radio, and eventually the growing importance of social media and blogs/forums like this which have helped increase the divide.

[HuskerNation1]

 

Now...u failed to address any points i made earlier including that you are viewing this topic and my response through your partisan lens.

 

 

 

I don't have one. I'm almost entirely politically agnostic. Next.

 

 

So you don't agree with any of this statement I made in post #7?

 

I think this is an interesting topic, but my fear is that in today's internet and social media age, the divide in this country will continue to grow. There are activists groups on both sides trying to push their own agendas, and they expect their parties (the so-called Establishment) to be purists to meet their ideological desires. Those in office fear losing the support of their extremists bases that control the primary process, and thus they are afraid to "compromise" for fear of being called out. And if there is a hot-button issue they do not want to compromise on such as abortion or immigration, it's often an issue that is so polarizing that the opposing party will do everything to block that issue from moving forward.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

A) Why are you still affiliated with a political party?

A) So I can vote in the primary.

A) I will give you that as an independent, primaries are pretty much meaningless to go to. However, that pretty much is the case just living in Nebraska.

 

This is not true (that, as an Independent in Nebraska, primaries are meaningless). Not only do you have options to vote on in primaries, in Nebraska you have MORE options as an Independent than a person locked into one or the other party.

 

From the Nebraska Sec. of State's voter registration FAQ:

 

http://www.sos.ne.gov/elec/voter_info.html

 

Must I designate a party affiliation?

 

No, voters may choose from one of the three statewide parties currently recognized in Nebraska: Democratic, Republican and Libertarian or they may choose to not affiliate with any party by checking the non-partisan box on the application.

 

If you wish to vote in the primary election, where parties choose their nominees for state and county offices, you need to declare your party affiliation.

 

If you register without a political party affiliation, you will receive only the non-partisan ballots at a primary election.

 

Non-partisans may designate a party preference at primary elections and receive partisan ballots for the Senate and House congressional races.

 

Party designation has no bearing when voting a non-partisan ballot or in the general election.

 

I'll admit this is worded somewhat oddly. I don't think that's an accident.

 

What this means is that, when you go to your polling site as an Independent, you have your choice of ballots. You can vote straight Independent, without any senatorial or congressional ballots, or you can choose one or the other. So if this election you want to vote on the Democratic candidates, you can. Next election you want to vote for the Republican candidates, you can. You can change it up every time.

 

When I go to vote, they ask me what ballot I want. I choose whichever race I think my vote will have the most impact, and I vote on that race. I voted in the Fisher/Bruning battle a while ago. I voted in the Democratic primary for Obama/against Clinton in 2008.

 

As an Independent, I have more choices. I cannot imagine why anyone in Nebraska aligns with any specific party.

I didn't know I could do that at the polling place. I would need to look at local and state races since the presidential primary doesn't mean jack in Nebraska.

[knapplc]

I didn't know I could do that at the polling place. I would need to look at local and state races since the presidential primary doesn't mean jack in Nebraska.

The people at my polling place are really cool, and very up-front about this. Maybe not every polling place is like this, since they're staffed by volunteers.

 

I've also been creating kid-centric child's ballots for the knapplc offspring to vote on since they were old enough to color a circle with a pencil so they get used to voting, and the polling people think this is charming and cute and remember me because of this. So maybe I get special attention.

[Moiraine]

 

I didn't know I could do that at the polling place. I would need to look at local and state races since the presidential primary doesn't mean jack in Nebraska.

The people at my polling place are really cool, and very up-front about this. Maybe not every polling place is like this, since they're staffed by volunteers.

 

I've also been creating kid-centric child's ballots for the knapplc offspring to vote on since they were old enough to color a circle with a pencil so they get used to voting, and the polling people think this is charming and cute and remember me because of this. So maybe I get special attention.

 

 

I've decided knapp's children are illegally voting.

[cm husker]

Classical liberalism. Economic and social freedom for all under the construct of a social contract (the last qualifier setting me apart from diehard libertarians)

[mrandyk]

Political parties may not be a terrible thing but the two-party system certainly is. Issues simply are not black and white and it is just moronic that this is how politics works in our country. I am registered independent and have never considered siding with a party. In the upcoming election I hope to vote for Sanders specifically because he was previously an independent senator.