The rise of the Independents (unaffiliated voters)

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1335
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 96 times
Contact:

The rise of the Independents (unaffiliated voters)

Post #1

Post by AgnosticBoy »

I want to discuss the validity of the independents and their effect on the elections.

The effect of independent voters
According to Gallup, 42% of Americans identify as an 'independent' voter, while 30% identify as Republican and 27% as Democrat. This shows that most Americans are not fully committed to either party since the majority are independents. If I broke these stats down state-by-state (as opposed viewing the national average), then this majority stat goes away because registered independents are not heavily concentrated in any state (except New Hampshire). Instead, you'll find states with a big concentration of Democrats or majority of Republicans, with independents occupying some percentage across all or most states. While there is no heavily "independent" party state, but here's where or when these voters will make a difference:
1. In swing states the population of Republicans and Democrats tend to be close in number. For example, the state of Florida has about 5 million registered Democrats and 5 million Republican voters BUT it also has about 3.5 million independent voters (no party affiliation). Here it is easy to see the effect of independent voters if or when the majority of them flocks to one party over the other.

The validity of the Independent voters

I should say that independent voters do not belong to any party. The rationale behind many independent voters is that the main parties have become corrupt, extreme, and too partisan. Being an independent gives you the freedom of mind to agree with and praise a politician like Trump when he's right and to condemn him when he's wrong. To be in any party, it seems you have to remain in a straight jacket and accept the entire political platform of ideas from your party, and then be against all of the ideas of the other party. If you don't believe me then try being a registered Democrat, especially one running for office, and acknowledge anything good from Trump and see the reaction you'll get.

As an independent, you don't necessarily have new views as a third party would. Instead, you can adopt the "good" views from BOTH parties while also coming up with your own views.

For the record, I was a lifelong Democrat, and I'm honestly considering voting for Trump. He seems less extreme compared to the competition. He is the lesser of two evils, imho.

For debate:
1. Do you agree or disagree that independent voters have big effect on elections?
2. Is the thinking behind the independent voter valid? Is it reasonable to remain unaffiliated?
3. Will the number of independent voters continue to increase ?

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1335
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 96 times
Contact:

Re: The rise of the Independents (unaffiliated voters)

Post #21

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Athetotheist wrote:
AgnosticBoy wrote: You're basing your conclusion off of ONE opinion piece article? Please offer stats from a reputable site to support your claim that a lot of asylum seekers are denied at the border..
Where do you get the idea that the article I referred to is an "opinion piece"? It's not headed as such. Opinion pieces offer opinions; this one relates an experience.
Experiences, especially one person's, does not prove your point about it being hard to enter the US. You presented your article to counter my claim that people can just get in just as long as they know the password which is "asylum". Since you think that is not the case, or in MANY cases it is not, I asked you for evidence in the form of stats.

Do you have that evidence? If not, then my claim stands that the screening is terrible since people get in just by saying "asylum.". The risk is that people will lie just to get in and drug gangs can abuse the system.

I await your evidence before answering your other claims.

User avatar
Aetixintro
Site Supporter
Posts: 894
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Has thanked: 398 times
Been thanked: 25 times
Contact:

Re: The rise of the Independents (unaffiliated voters)

Post #22

Post by Aetixintro »

[Replying to post 6 by Athetotheist]

The story of the truly homeless is not a romantic one. To be unable to live in an apartment owned by yourself is likely to be a symptom of a pervert person, a person of the deeper part of the schizophrenia spectrum of the 2 Category System for all mental illnesses. As such, it doesn't matter how much money you throw at them, without proper treatment their condition will persist.

The underprivileged kids will also be greatly helped by proper wages, suitably high minimum wages. Unionizing?

Just adding a bit of information. :study: 8-)
I'm cool! :) - Stronger Religion every day! Also by "mathematical Religion", the eternal forms, God closing the door on corrupt humanity, possibly!

Athetotheist
Guru
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 168 times

Re: The rise of the Independents (unaffiliated voters)

Post #23

Post by Athetotheist »

AgnosticBoy wrote:
Athetotheist wrote:
AgnosticBoy wrote: You're basing your conclusion off of ONE opinion piece article? Please offer stats from a reputable site to support your claim that a lot of asylum seekers are denied at the border..
Where do you get the idea that the article I referred to is an "opinion piece"? It's not headed as such. Opinion pieces offer opinions; this one relates an experience.
Experiences, especially one person's, does not prove your point about it being hard to enter the US. You presented your article to counter my claim that people can just get in just as long as they know the password which is "asylum". Since you think that is not the case, or in MANY cases it is not, I asked you for evidence in the form of stats.

Do you have that evidence? If not, then my claim stands that the screening is terrible since people get in just by saying "asylum.". The risk is that people will lie just to get in and drug gangs can abuse the system.

I await your evidence before answering your other claims.
First, let's scroll up in the article you quoted, with emphasis mine:
There are many reasons to avoid requesting asylum at the port of entry to the United States.

One is that the inspections officers have the power to quickly find you inadmissible and deport you, in which case you will not be allowed to return for five years. This can happen if an inspector believes that you are making a misrepresentation (committing fraud), or misrepresented the truth when you got your visa, or if you do not have the proper travel or visa documents at the time you request entry.
Now let's look again at the paragraph you quoted, again with my emphasis:
There is an exception to the summary exclusion process for people who fear persecution and request asylum. So, even if you do not have the proper documents or you have made a misrepresentation, you could still be allowed to enter the U.S. if you make clear that your reason is to apply for asylum AND you can SHOW that you'd be likely to win asylum.
All this seems a far cry from just saying the password "asylum" and getting in.

Athetotheist
Guru
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 168 times

Re: The rise of the Independents (unaffiliated voters)

Post #24

Post by Athetotheist »

Aetixintro wrote: [Replying to post 6 by Athetotheist]
Aetixintro wrote:The story of the truly homeless is not a romantic one. To be unable to live in an apartment owned by yourself is likely to be a symptom of a pervert person, a person of the deeper part of the schizophrenia spectrum of the 2 Category System for all mental illnesses. As such, it doesn't matter how much money you throw at them, without proper treatment their condition will persist.
Are we stigmatizing the homeless and blaming yhem for their own plight as if economic inequality had nothing to do with it?

Gracchus
Apprentice
Posts: 149
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:09 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Post #25

Post by Gracchus »

"He is the lesser of two evils, imho."

Who chooses the lesser evil still chooses evil. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and ideals discarded by "pragmatists" as they take that road ever lower into wretched misery. [-X

:study:

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 668 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Post #26

Post by Purple Knight »

Gracchus wrote:Who chooses the lesser evil still chooses evil.
I believe this too.

I don't understand why people make arguments about crime, since it's immaterial whether immigrants commit more or less crimes. In fact they commit less.

But if they did commit more, it wouldn't change the fundamental right or wrong of helping someone in need, or choosing not to help them.

It wouldn't matter if the needy person had a gun in his hand and I knew he was going to shoot me. My position is that the right or wrongness choosing to help him, versus choosing not to, has not changed.

If there's anything to be argued it's that there are needy on both sides. Immigrants are so hardworking that they tend to outcompete American or European workers pretty easily. This is just something we're taught to accept because capitalism. Oh, you lost your job? You're needy now? Too bad, go home, starve or git gud, you lost on the free market.

If you want more people to be accepting of doing the right thing, and less reactionaries willing to give anything to build a wall, maybe show them their livelihoods are not at stake. Don't tell them; show them. When there is a job guarantee for every American, no one will oppose immigration. And if you're going to complain about what that would cost, then those reactionaries are right to give anything for a wall, because of what immigration costs them.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1335
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 96 times
Contact:

Re: The rise of the Independents (unaffiliated voters)

Post #27

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Athetotheist wrote: Now let's look again at the paragraph you quoted, again with my emphasis:
There is an exception to the summary exclusion process for people who fear persecution and request asylum. So, even if you do not have the proper documents or you have made a misrepresentation, you could still be allowed to enter the U.S. if you make clear that your reason is to apply for asylum AND you can SHOW that you'd be likely to win asylum.
All this seems a far cry from just saying the password "asylum" and getting in.
My claim is correct for the most part. Not only do you claim asylum, but you must also "explain" how or why you are an asylee. This is what the word "show" refers to in what you quoted. It's all part of an interview (not trial) process that helps ensure that an asylee has credible fear of persecution in their home country and meets the definition of a refugee/asylee according to US/international law.

But in all cases (even the ones where the interviewer doesn't believe you), especially when children are involved, you are detained in the US for further processing. This shows that you do enter the US, although detained in detention centers, based on password asylum and of course American taxpayers are paying for it. These are the same detention centers that popped up across the country and the ones the mainstream media attacked president Trump for (before he started detaining asylum seekers in Mexico).

And there are a back log of these cases so each case can take up to months to several years to resolve. During this process, some of these asylum seekers are let go into our country under what's been called "catch and release", and this is especially the case when minors are involved. Here's one source for that:
Since fiscal year (FY) 2016, more than 107,000 UACs [unaccompanied children] have been released into the interior of the United States. 2,895 UACs were released into the U.S. in February 2018 alone, bringing the total for FY 2018 thus far to 13,186. Once released, most UACs remain here by failing to either show up for court hearings or comply with removal orders. As a result, only 3.5 percent of UACs who are apprehended are eventually removed from the U.S. The surge of UACs entering and remaining in the U.S. is in addition to the more than 167,000 Family Units which were apprehended between FY 2016 and February 2018. Nearly all apprehended family units are also released into the U.S. due to judicially-imposed constraints on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s authority to detain them.
Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-st ... h-release/

This is why I advocate for asylum seekers to stay in their own countries until approved. Then come to the US. That would sure save the tax payers money, money that could be used taking care of our own homeless/mentally ill.

Wait, but it gets worse. You say my claim was a "far cry" from just saying asylum at the border and just letting that person in. How about just sneaking into the country and then applying for asylum?
Individuals can apply for asylum affirmatively if they are physically present in the U.S., regardless of how they entered the country within one year after arrival. They can also apply for asylum at ports of entry.
Source: https://immigrationforum.org/article/fa ... m-process/

Here's more on the affirmative asylum process:
Affirmative asylum applicants are rarely detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). You may live in the United States while your application is pending before USCIS. If you are found ineligible, you can remain in the United States while your application is pending with the Immigration Judge.
Source: https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refu ... ted-states
So you sneak into the country (without going through ports of entry), then you apply for asylum. You are NOT detained if caught IN THE US already, and then you can stay. Meanwhile, the taxpayers are paying for all of this when you request government assistance. Yep, no one will abuse this one!
Last edited by AgnosticBoy on Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:37 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1335
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 96 times
Contact:

Re: The rise of the Independents (unaffiliated voters)

Post #28

Post by AgnosticBoy »

[Replying to post 22 by Athetotheist]
Refer to my very last post. Not only have I shown how our immigration laws can be abused, but I've also shown how recent policies from Democrats (abolishing ICE, decriminalizing border crossings, sanctuary cities, etc.) do nothing to deter any of the problems. Instead, their policies encourage, aid, and abet illegal immigrants.

There's a reason why the number of illegal border crossings have decreased although the number of asylum applications have INCREASED. Could it be people who want in our country illegally are resorting to exploiting our asylum laws?

Either way, I've backed up my claims. I asked you to back up one of your claims and so far you DODGED it. If you're going to respond to one of my claims, at least do that while also backing up your claims, as well. It's only proper debate.

Gracchus
Apprentice
Posts: 149
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:09 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: The rise of the Independents (unaffiliated voters)

Post #29

Post by Gracchus »

[Replying to post 7 by AgnosticBoy]
There is no free lunch. If the taxes raised give us value for what we pay then there is no reason to be against raising tax rates. Especially, progressive taxes prevent the accumulation of excessive, corrupting wealth into the hands of just a few people, which destabilizes economically and socially. Thus, there should be strict limits on inherited wealth, and the profits allowed to corporations and corporate officers. Copyrights should only be extended through the lives of the creative individuals who produced the work, and never extended for corporations.



:study:

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1335
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 96 times
Contact:

Re: The rise of the Independents (unaffiliated voters)

Post #30

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Gracchus wrote: There is no free lunch. If the taxes raised give us value for what we pay then there is no reason to be against raising tax rates.
That would depend on how much of our money the government wants. No one would be happy if it's a high amount that keeps increasing with no end in sight. The government may as well control all of your money at that point.

Another issue is government spending. That can't be left unchecked because eventhough the government has unlimited ideas that they want to put money towards but money and taxes are limited. If taxes and money were unlimited then we would be helping every single poor and homeless person in America, providing them with food, shelter, college education, and healthcare. That isn't the case. And of course, there are things that people don't want the government spending money on, like paying for "illegal" immigrants.

Post Reply