4 ms·

What should I be instead, a Democrat? The answer to your question is no. Why on earth would I change my party affiliation based solely on the actions of two me

What should I be instead, a Democrat? The answer to your question is no. Why on earth would I change my party affiliation based solely on the actions of two members of the party? I'll also add, other than this small stain, Parsons has been good. No major changes or upsets. It's boring here in Missouri politically, and I like that.

dekhn 5y ago
You shouldn't. You might want to write a letter to the governor expressing your concern at his lack of acumen, but beyond that, I wouldn't do anything.
criley2 5y ago
It's strange that you say "why on earth would I change my party affiliation based on the actions of two members" as if those two members weren't the two highest elected members of the state party. It's like if the CEO and Chairman of the board of a corporation were embezzling funds and someone replied "Why would I change my opinion of a company based on two random employees?" I think you did that because it's pretty obvious why someone might sour on an organization whose highest leaders continued in a pattern of bad behavior. In fact, quite the opposite of your claim here, I think it would be common sense to change your opinion on an organization based on a pattern of misbehavior by its top leaders. The reality of modern American politics, though, as I think you demonstrate as do most people, is that Negative Partisanship is the only factor at all that matters. The people on "your team" can do anything at all, because "the other team" is worse. This is the sentiment that drives all American politics at the state and federal level.
- froggertoaster 5y ago
  > The reality of modern American politics, though, as I think you demonstrate as do most people, is that Negative Partisanship is the only factor at all that matters. The people on "your team" can do anything at all, because "the other team" is worse. This is the sentiment that drives all American politics at the state and federal level. Completely and utterly wrong assumption about me on your part. Both parties suck. There is a lesser evil, and that's the evil I unfortunately subscribe to. Wish there was a better way, but there isn't, so I'm stuck with what I got.
  - celticninja 5y ago
    In part though that is because you are looking on the micro level. This Republican facing no consequences enables others to act the same, then when it is so widespread that it infects the entire party it becomes acceptable for all of the party. Now they know they can get away with it and the electorate doesnt punish them. Sounds like you have swallowed their propaganda entirely if you think they are bad but they have convinced you the other guy is worse.
    - justin66 5y ago
      > Sounds like you have swallowed their propaganda entirely if you think they are bad but they have convinced you the other guy is worse. In this case, it was not a guy but a woman running against Parsons. (Wow, those are some downvotes! People reacted to this comment like a Missouri voter reacts to a female gubernatorial candidate.)
    - dgfitz 5y ago
      > This Republican facing no consequences enables others to act the same, then when it is so widespread that it infects the entire party it becomes acceptable for all of the party. I'm sure we could compile a list of elected officials across a spectrum of political parties where no consequences are faced (for an action, in-action, decision, cover-up, etc) when they may be warranted. I don't think this is a valid argument.
  - criley2 5y ago
    >Completely and utterly wrong assumption about me on your part. Is it? >There is a lesser evil, and that's the evil I unfortunately subscribe to. Wish there was a better way, but there isn't, so I'm stuck with what I got. So, in a sense, by subscribing to a lesser of two evils idea, you're doing the same thing as "the other team is worse" (the thing I said). It is what it is, negative partisanship does drive everything, and the first step to better politics is admitting we have a problem.
- seejayjordan 5y ago
- chad_strategic 5y ago
  > is that Negative Partisanship is the only factor at all that matter I couldn't have said it any better. It's all a political theater. (both sides) Negative Partisanship, drives anger and fear. Fear and anger drive donations and votes. Fear and anger drive views/clicks, news outlets and the media, everybody wins! Wash, rinse, repeat, circa 1776!
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    > both sides You literally just made a both sides argument. I'm not a fan of either party, but I'm also not a supporter of the idea that both sides are both equally bad. Only one side stormed the Capitol in an explicit attempt to reverse en election result they did not like, and persists to this day in insisting that they actually won. Yes, both sides have some problems, both say and do super annoying things, but 'both sides' is just giving the Republican Party an out, where instead we should hold them to account for trying to tip over the table and destroy our democracy.
- violiner 5y ago
  I, for one, have embraced my negative partisanship. I'm not a Democrat. I'm an anti-Republican.
long_time_gone 5y ago
> What should I be instead, a Democrat? I never suggested that. There are plenty of people walking around who are unaffiliated or support 3rd parties. Not being a "Republican" doesn't make you a "Democrat". > Why on earth would I change my party affiliation based on the actions of two members of the party? They are not just "two members of the party", they are last two heads of the party in your state. When Republicans stopped doing things I agreed with, I stopped calling myself a Republican.
- aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
  > Not being a "Republican" doesn't make you a "Democrat". If only both sides of the fence understood that...
  - long_time_gone 5y ago
    This reads like finger pointing used to justify an existing stance.
consumer451 5y ago
I would recommend not being devoted to any political group or party. It's the greatest hack. You can chose policies à la carte, you can decide who you associate yourself with on a case-by-case basis. You can avoid group think errors in judgement. If you must register for primaries in your state, then that's fine. But that's where the association would end in my book.
floodyberry- 5y ago
Great Missouri facts: * One abortion clinic in the entire state! It would be zero if not for the pesky courts. If Mike gets his way, Missouri will be "the most Pro-Life state in the country!" * No permit required for open or concealed carry! Sell or buy your guns with whoever you like. You can even point your guns at filthy liberals with your finger on the trigger and the governor will pardon you of any crimes you may be convicted of * 54% of the state is fully vaccinated, one of the lowest rates in the country! If you need any more encouragement to visit, masks are optional and actually frowned upon by the better class of Missouri citizens (conservatives)! * Current Missouri Senator Josh Hawley attempted to overthrow the government on Jan 6! * No voting by mail! "So if they don’t [feel safe voting in person], then don’t go out and vote". Great words, Mike!

dekhn 5y ago

You shouldn't. You might want to write a letter to the governor expressing your concern at his lack of acumen, but beyond that, I wouldn't do anything.

criley2 5y ago

It's strange that you say "why on earth would I change my party affiliation based on the actions of two members" as if those two members weren't the two highest elected members of the state party. It's like if the CEO and Chairman of the board of a corporation were embezzling funds and someone replied "Why would I change my opinion of a company based on two random employees?" I think you did that because it's pretty obvious why someone might sour on an organization whose highest leaders continued in a pattern of bad behavior. In fact, quite the opposite of your claim here, I think it would be common sense to change your opinion on an organization based on a pattern of misbehavior by its top leaders. The reality of modern American politics, though, as I think you demonstrate as do most people, is that Negative Partisanship is the only factor at all that matters. The people on "your team" can do anything at all, because "the other team" is worse. This is the sentiment that drives all American politics at the state and federal level.

froggertoaster 5y ago
> The reality of modern American politics, though, as I think you demonstrate as do most people, is that Negative Partisanship is the only factor at all that matters. The people on "your team" can do anything at all, because "the other team" is worse. This is the sentiment that drives all American politics at the state and federal level. Completely and utterly wrong assumption about me on your part. Both parties suck. There is a lesser evil, and that's the evil I unfortunately subscribe to. Wish there was a better way, but there isn't, so I'm stuck with what I got.
- celticninja 5y ago
  In part though that is because you are looking on the micro level. This Republican facing no consequences enables others to act the same, then when it is so widespread that it infects the entire party it becomes acceptable for all of the party. Now they know they can get away with it and the electorate doesnt punish them. Sounds like you have swallowed their propaganda entirely if you think they are bad but they have convinced you the other guy is worse.
  - justin66 5y ago
    > Sounds like you have swallowed their propaganda entirely if you think they are bad but they have convinced you the other guy is worse. In this case, it was not a guy but a woman running against Parsons. (Wow, those are some downvotes! People reacted to this comment like a Missouri voter reacts to a female gubernatorial candidate.)
  - dgfitz 5y ago
    > This Republican facing no consequences enables others to act the same, then when it is so widespread that it infects the entire party it becomes acceptable for all of the party. I'm sure we could compile a list of elected officials across a spectrum of political parties where no consequences are faced (for an action, in-action, decision, cover-up, etc) when they may be warranted. I don't think this is a valid argument.
- criley2 5y ago
  >Completely and utterly wrong assumption about me on your part. Is it? >There is a lesser evil, and that's the evil I unfortunately subscribe to. Wish there was a better way, but there isn't, so I'm stuck with what I got. So, in a sense, by subscribing to a lesser of two evils idea, you're doing the same thing as "the other team is worse" (the thing I said). It is what it is, negative partisanship does drive everything, and the first step to better politics is admitting we have a problem.
seejayjordan 5y ago
chad_strategic 5y ago
> is that Negative Partisanship is the only factor at all that matter I couldn't have said it any better. It's all a political theater. (both sides) Negative Partisanship, drives anger and fear. Fear and anger drive donations and votes. Fear and anger drive views/clicks, news outlets and the media, everybody wins! Wash, rinse, repeat, circa 1776!
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  > both sides You literally just made a both sides argument. I'm not a fan of either party, but I'm also not a supporter of the idea that both sides are both equally bad. Only one side stormed the Capitol in an explicit attempt to reverse en election result they did not like, and persists to this day in insisting that they actually won. Yes, both sides have some problems, both say and do super annoying things, but 'both sides' is just giving the Republican Party an out, where instead we should hold them to account for trying to tip over the table and destroy our democracy.
violiner 5y ago
I, for one, have embraced my negative partisanship. I'm not a Democrat. I'm an anti-Republican.

long_time_gone 5y ago

> What should I be instead, a Democrat? I never suggested that. There are plenty of people walking around who are unaffiliated or support 3rd parties. Not being a "Republican" doesn't make you a "Democrat". > Why on earth would I change my party affiliation based on the actions of two members of the party? They are not just "two members of the party", they are last two heads of the party in your state. When Republicans stopped doing things I agreed with, I stopped calling myself a Republican.

aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
> Not being a "Republican" doesn't make you a "Democrat". If only both sides of the fence understood that...
- long_time_gone 5y ago
  This reads like finger pointing used to justify an existing stance.

consumer451 5y ago

I would recommend not being devoted to any political group or party. It's the greatest hack. You can chose policies à la carte, you can decide who you associate yourself with on a case-by-case basis. You can avoid group think errors in judgement. If you must register for primaries in your state, then that's fine. But that's where the association would end in my book.

floodyberry- 5y ago

Great Missouri facts: * One abortion clinic in the entire state! It would be zero if not for the pesky courts. If Mike gets his way, Missouri will be "the most Pro-Life state in the country!" * No permit required for open or concealed carry! Sell or buy your guns with whoever you like. You can even point your guns at filthy liberals with your finger on the trigger and the governor will pardon you of any crimes you may be convicted of * 54% of the state is fully vaccinated, one of the lowest rates in the country! If you need any more encouragement to visit, masks are optional and actually frowned upon by the better class of Missouri citizens (conservatives)! * Current Missouri Senator Josh Hawley attempted to overthrow the government on Jan 6! * No voting by mail! "So if they don’t [feel safe voting in person], then don’t go out and vote". Great words, Mike!