Third Party & Independents Archives

Just too Gullable

Most people don’t know that they are gullable until they have already fallen for the trap.
Just where does this apply?
Is it the terrorists who believe in the 72 virgins? Is it the followers of the KKK? Is it the poor? Or maybe the Black Panthers?
How about those who adhere to one party? What about those who cling to the fringes of either the Republican or Democratic parties?

One thing we may all be able to agree on.... Our politicians know how to 'fire up their bases'. They know how to get out the news clip that will bring their particular voters to the polls. The ones who will most likely keep them in power.

What most of us don't realize is that by keeping the same people in power we never really accomplish anything.

What most people don't realize is politicians are simply out for their own selves.

How can we not already understand the problems of the Middle East?
People are gullable.
Most people need someone to follow. Most people need someone or something to believe in.
It goes on right here in the U.S.A. every day.
The difference is whether one is allowed to freely believe without the threat of death.
The Muslims can continue to believe in their religion... the peaceful part.
How can this possibly be accomplished in the short run? It can't.
How can this possibly be accomplished without war? It can't.
Iran is the major cause (backer) of all the unrest in the Middle East. Not the U.S.. Not Israel.
The Democrats have called for the U.S. to invade Iran. How would it be any different than Iraq?

What is at the heart of the political disagreement in our nation?
Is it that one side believes the 'bad guys' need to be wiped out and the other side believes the 'bad guys' need to be talked to or need therapy?
Will the 'therapy people' take in the bad guys and show them the error of their ways? or do they really not have a problem with them being 'taken out'. They just can't say it out loud??

Just who is it that can make most of us realize that we have to work together to solve these problems?
The major players in our two Political Parties aren't concerned with the interests of all of us - they are concerned with their own party, their own poltical careers.
That's what the fight is over for the election in November. That is already the setup for the next Presidential Election.
Which PARTY will win. NOT how America will win.

Posted by Dawn at August 13, 2006 1:03 AM
Comment #175267

I’m not too gullable, especially since I know it’s spelled “gullible”. (sorry, had to do it.)

I agree in general with the rest of the article. I consider myself Republican, but certainly not lock and step. Actually I’m more anti-Liberal/Democrat than pro-Conservative/Republican. I usually don’t vote for Republicans but rather vote against democrats.

I think it’s important to realize for those devout independents, that most common folk like myself who claim the “R” or the “D” aren’t militant one way or the other. (This BLOG may be an exception however.) I think that’s why even though dems have more USA registration that we constantly see a smattering mix of Presidents. Even the Congress, IMO, has made a historic shift in the last 15 years from constant Dem control to the same fluctuating shift we see in the White House.

Another point to be made is that the US will benefit if no party maintains complete control of the WH, HOR, & Senate decade after decade. The number of Independents will fall and rise (I think they’re due for a rise by the way) but generally the power-fluctuating 2 party system has done the country fairly well through its inherit and special system of checks and balances.

In closing, you’re right. You never just want to rely on pitching, or hitting, or passing, or running, or jump shots, or dunks … open minds and the ability for us all to think for ourselves will allow this great experiment to continue.

Posted by: Ken Strong at August 13, 2006 2:47 AM
Comment #175283

Well, first let’s start this discussion from the premise that “gullible” isn’t even in the English Dictionary…

Posted by: tony at August 13, 2006 9:58 AM
Comment #175300

nyuck, nyuck, nyuck

Posted by: Loren at August 13, 2006 1:06 PM
Comment #175304

“What most people don’t realize is politicians are simply out for their own selves.”

Not at all true, while many may be only out for their own interests, making such a broad generalization is illogical. Not all politicians are only out for themselves. Too make your statement untrue it would merely take one politician who was not only out for him / herself, as you implied a broad generalization of all politicans.

A great percentage of politicians whether they be Green, Libertarian, Republican, or Democrat want to better our country, although they disagree on the definition of what would be better for our country.

Now granted at the same time there is a percentage, I couldn’t say what that percentage is, that is only out for themselves but it certainly is not one hundred percent.

Such broad generalizations are illogical and stereotyping and bad for society in general.

Do you believe that all lawyers are only out for money, many are but not all, and only out for themselves, that none of them are concerned with upholding civil rights or standing for the law?

Do you believe that all women are worse at math than males?

Do you believe that all African Americans eat watermelon?

Do you believe that all Catholic priests molest children?

You should get the point. While some lawyers are only out for money, some women are worse at math than men, some African Americans eat watermelon, and some Catholic priests have molested children, that doesn’t mean that they all do. The same goes to self interested politicans, some may be but all are not.

Broad generalizations of groups of people are illogical, stereotyping, and overall bad for society.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at August 13, 2006 1:36 PM
Comment #175308

Good post Richard.

Posted by: Ken Strong at August 13, 2006 1:45 PM
Comment #175421

just a point
You cannot be “independent” when you state that you are “Anti-Liberal/Left” — you are still attached to them (Liberal left) — THEY are deciding for you how you are voting — NOT YOU

To be truely independant you have to NOT CARE — or NOT LINK your actions to ANYONE else — regardless of their affliation

You are not “Independant” — you are, by your own admission “Anti-Liberal”
So — you are admitting that you are putting up with alot of BS from the right merely because it is NOT LIBERAL????
So anything Liberal is bad — boy that is not thinking that is KNEE-JERK reaction.

Posted by: Russ at August 14, 2006 10:37 AM
Comment #175449


I get your point, but I think that it is more semantic than anything else. Generally, when we speak of Independents in politics, it means not attached to the Repubican, Democrat, or one of the other major parties.

Btw, being anti-something does not necessarily make you not independent. I’m pretty anti-Socialist (before we get David going, that’s big “S” socialist not small “s”), but that doesn’t impede by ability to choose from the other available options.

Posted by: Rob at August 14, 2006 2:16 PM
Comment #175481

Rob, thanks, them small vs. capital S’s are important. :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 14, 2006 5:39 PM
Comment #175494


Nice article. (Did you jump columns?, I thought I recalled articles from you in Team Red.)

Adding to what you said above, I think that people’s inherent desires to believe in a good -vs- evil / right -vs- wrong world (where whoever stands at the pulpit preaching is good / right) have led us to where we are at now.

You are absolutely correct that politicians from either side are interested in power alone, and not the concerns, needs or values of the American people.

Posted by: Taylor at August 14, 2006 7:46 PM
Comment #175943


I’ve voted for independents and for democrats in local elections who seemed to have a better plan than their counterparts. The HOR, Senate, and WH runs from Democrats have too many tentacles attached to liberal groups I don’t support. So I definitely consider myself Republican/Conservative and never once stated I was an Independent which makes your post moot. What I did say, and my voting history supports it, that I’m not beholden to anyone. Every candidate has to earn my vote.

But thanks for the attempt to marginalize someone you don’t know.


Posted by: Ken Strong at August 16, 2006 7:35 PM
Post a comment