what do you think of people who claim neither republican or democrat and say they are independents? Just started thinking about this, and I've heard a lot of people say that its sort of an easy way out, but I think a lot of people can align themselves with issues on both sides.
If this should be in Soap Box, Sorry I'll move it, I just wasn't sure where to put it.

11/10/2005 7:19:50 PM

independants are those who have no backbone.

sure nobody totally agrees with one party's platform. But if you look at ALL the issues (which most don't even bother to do anyway) you will fall on one side or the other.

Independants make me think of this...some dude sitting on a ratty ass couch hitting a bong at 4am after a night of partying saying "yeah man (cough cough) fuck the two party shit, i'm independant"

11/10/2005 7:24:16 PM

I just don't understand how it can be considered having no backbone. Is it not possible to align yourself with the environmental policies and economic policies of the left and also align yourself with the National Security and moral stances on the right? I mean I guess if you really sat down and thought about everything that makes up one side or the other and matched your beliefs with those you would most likely fall on one of the sides, but if your split on the main policies couldn't that justify taking an independent stance.
By the way, I'm not independent, I was just thinking about it today and I really don't understand all the criticism towards the independents.

11/10/2005 7:33:30 PM

be a bastard and demand that they take the politicalcompass.org test. "independent" is an illusion of a broken two-party system.

11/10/2005 7:39:09 PM

^^^ you cant even spell independent, you fucking idiot.

and it's right there for you in the original post.

and your assumptions about independents having no backbone is totally off-base. IMO independents have enough of a backbone that they dont have to conform to the party's beliefs on every issue. If you call yourself a democrat, you are having less of a backbone because youre just going along with what democrats stand for instead of investigating further and thinking for yourself about the issues. The same goes for republicans. Of course there are those people who have thought about the issues and happen to agree with one party or the other, but there have got to be a lot of people who just go along with what their party believes out of pride in their party or wanting to be a part of a majority.

11/10/2005 7:50:02 PM

^ i concur, and consider myself a left-leaning moderate

11/10/2005 7:51:50 PM

Quote :

"Is it not possible to align yourself with the environmental policies and economic policies of the left and also align yourself with the National Security and moral stances on the right?"

i'm almost the exact opposite, aligning myself with the economic and national security stances of the right, but the environmental and moral stances of the left.

[Edited on November 10, 2005 at 7:53 PM. Reason : s]

11/10/2005 7:53:06 PM

^^^ similar to what I was thinking today

11/10/2005 7:58:08 PM

^^quasi-libertarian

kinda like me...although i think i'm a little more centrist than you are socially

[Edited on November 10, 2005 at 8:00 PM. Reason : i know you know that...that's for everyone else]

11/10/2005 7:58:48 PM

I’m independent because the current parties don't represent my political views. They are both to the extreme, either way too conservative socially (Republicans) or way to liberal fiscally (democrats).

I've said this before and I'll say it again,

I'm fiscally conservative but socially liberal, neither party fall into that category.

I'm independent because I know that not every republican/democrat have the same political ideas on every subject. I research each candidates views and vote for the person who most closely represents my views. I want their views that would impact their decisions in that particular position of government to represent mine

... sometimes its a republican candidate that falls more into line with my views and sometimes a democrat represents more of my political views for certain political positions.


Nothing in this world is black and white, republican or democrat.... this is why I'm independent.

I think people who choose a “side” are really just too lazy to do the research behind different candidate views and whether or not it represents theirs for that position in which the candidate is running. It's so much easier for them just to just say He/She's a democrat/republican and vote that way (Not all people, but majority).

So sometime I vote republican and sometimes I vote democrat, it depends on the candidate’s views and what position of government they are trying to get elected to.

11/10/2005 8:17:55 PM

Me and the Dalai Lama are holding down the exact same spot on the compass.

[Edited on November 10, 2005 at 8:23 PM. Reason : ...]

11/10/2005 8:22:19 PM

^^if you're fiscally conservative, you're pretty much hung out to dry right now.

politically homeless

11/10/2005 8:47:51 PM

People can call themselves independent for various reasons. The several I know do it because they really don't fall into the two major categories or because they want to make it clear they look beyond the party to issues when voting (like renegade), or because they come from and marry into crazy political families (straight ticket republicans, fox news is too liberal, are STILL ordering freedom fries, etc) and it qualms more disputes (not intellectual debate, more like you are stupid why are you so stupid, you're going to hell, do you not love america/jesus/pick a point) to not be a registered democrat.

11/10/2005 8:50:37 PM

^^ Politically homeless?

You mean the Republican Study Committee doesn't suit your fancy?

11/10/2005 8:52:57 PM

I am a radical Libertarian. I feel the federal government should only exist to provide the essentials as outlined in the Constitution, those being the military, law enforcement, and the judicial system. All this other socialist, big government bullshit needs to be abolished (public schools, all forms of welfare, regulations on corporations, pretty much 90% of the federal government).

11/10/2005 8:53:18 PM

yeah

fuck highways.

11/10/2005 8:57:47 PM

The highway system can be privatised. I'm sure it would be in alot better shape than it is now and would be repaired quicker as well.

11/10/2005 9:01:32 PM

and fuck the FDA, too.

11/10/2005 9:05:05 PM

Quote :

"^^if you're fiscally conservative, you're pretty much hung out to dry right now. politically homeless "

I know... and this makes me

11/10/2005 9:06:05 PM

Quote :

"and fuck the FDA, too."

Companies that produce dangerous drugs will go out of business. As it stands now, the FDA is making it harder for women to get the contraceptives they need to control pregnancy. They are a nusiance in my opinion. The FDA should be abolished along with 95% of the other federal agencies.

11/10/2005 9:32:05 PM

^^^^^u def. are a radical libertarian. I myself am a republican and feel that gov't is best when reduced as much as it can be. But no public schools at all? You must not be a believer in the notion that a healthy democracy requires and educated electorate. Also, no regulations what so ever on business?? I am pro-business, and i am for minimum gov't involvement, but I think the late 19th and early 20th centuries provided an example of what happens when there is no regulation of business what so ever.

11/10/2005 9:34:08 PM

^^ kind of like homeopathic medicines and other new-agey herbal shit has gone out of business? oh wait, you're the type of sucker who would actually buy into shit like that.

hell, wtf you've probably got an ionic "air purifier" in your room as you type

[Edited on November 10, 2005 at 9:36 PM. Reason : s]

11/10/2005 9:35:43 PM

Businesses will not creat drugs to kill their customers. First off, there would be a public outcry once the people found out, and believe me the media would insure they found out. Second off, it wouldn't be in their interest financially to kill their customers off with dangerous drugs because they want the drugs safe so people will keep coming back and buying more. The FDA, like most federal agencies is not needed.

Quote :

"^^ kind of like homeopathic medicines and other new-agey herbal shit has gone out of business? oh wait, you're the type of sucker who would actually buy into shit like that. hell, wtf you've probably got an ionic "air purifier" in your room as you type"

I assume this comment was directed at me. No, I donot by any "new-agey herbal shit" and I try to stay away from any prescription and OTC drugs if possible.

11/10/2005 9:41:18 PM

Shouldn't this be in the Soapbox?

Technically when I registered 4 years ago to vote, I chose independent to have the ability to move back and forth between not just the 2 major parties, but any party, according to the candidate.
I have ended up most closest to Green, although I still will vote for left Democrats if I agree on some major issues with them.

11/10/2005 9:44:02 PM

A moderate is just someone who doesn't have the balls to be an extremist.

11/10/2005 10:04:06 PM

yep, no backbone = no balls

11/10/2005 10:06:56 PM

Moderate and independent are not the same thing. For example, it's possible to be a liberal who sometimes votes Democrat, sometimes Green (or, say, a conservative who votes Republican or Libertarian).

All "Independent" means is that you don't identify yourself 100% with the beliefs of one party--and a lot of this thread is based on stereotypes instead.

[Edited on November 10, 2005 at 10:11 PM. Reason : . ]

11/10/2005 10:10:59 PM

What about people registered "Unaffiliated?"

11/10/2005 10:25:11 PM

Unaffiliated is the same as independent.

11/10/2005 10:30:40 PM

Quote :

"I feel the federal government should only exist to provide the essentials as outlined in the Constitution, those being the military, law enforcement, and the judicial system. All this other socialist, big government bullshit needs to be abolished (public schools, all forms of welfare, regulations on corporations, pretty much 90% of the federal government)."

sounds like most hard-core conservatives i know

Quote :

"Companies that produce dangerous drugs will go out of business. "

yes, after killing a few thousand people. who cares tho, fuck em.

fuck the EPA, all they do is steal money from legitimate businesses

oh and fuck the UN too, they don't do shit.

lastly fuck any form of public education. poor kids deserve to be just as stupid as their ignorant ass parents.

Quote :

"Age : 18 "

grow up a little buddy. believe me, when i was 18 i had tons of ideological views too. once you grow up and experience a little thing called life your views will moderate.


[Edited on November 10, 2005 at 11:44 PM. Reason : ]

11/10/2005 11:39:56 PM

Yeah, I'm libertarian, but not a radical libertarian. I'm just a fiscal conservative that breaks sharply with the christian wing of the republican party on most social issues, such as abortion and stem cell research.

I usually agree with guys like McCain, Schwartzeneggar, and that closet homo...whatever his name is.

I definitely feel politically homeless now after watching a republican congress and white house spend like its going out of style, while consolidating power with irrelevant issues like gay marriage.

11/11/2005 12:10:24 AM

I'm somewhere between a Libertarian and a socialist. I'd like to see a fairly regulated economy, and gradual movement in the direction of redistribution... but realistically, a democracy can't fairly regulate an economy, special interest groups will always be able to influence the voting public in a manner that benefits the economic interest of those represented by the special interest groups. So, if it comes down to an unregulated Wild west circus of an economy, and a fairly regulated economy that more often than not protects the interests of those they're supposed to be regulating, I'd just as soon have the circus as it guarantees nothing and allows a more fair and functional Darwinistic distribution of wealth.

In either case, I am pretty radical and think we need to metaphorically aboutface and take a brisk morning run towards more sensible policies across the board.

I'm declared as a Libertarian... I don't think third party or independant affiliation implies anything about an individual other than they're not happy with what either of the two major parties are presently trying to accomplish.

[Edited on November 11, 2005 at 1:36 AM. Reason : *]

11/11/2005 1:27:02 AM

i'm Bull-Moose.

speak softly, carry a big stick, all that jazz.

i find the republicans to be annoying because when the lights go out they're just as debaucherous as the democrats. i find the democrats annoying because they push their shit on people much worse than the republicans do. both sides are lying, cheating, self-serving assholes who won't concede any sort of thanks to the other because they're wrapped up in their psuedo-1863 mentality. us and them, good guys and bad guys. i'd say most good people are republicans, except for the politicians that represent them, and most bad people are democrats, except for the politicians that represent them. morality, which is just another word for common sense and decency, is scorned by the left and exploited by the right.

basically they can all go fuck themselves. i'm a right leaning bull-moose kinda guy. socially conservative, fiscally whatever it takes.

11/11/2005 1:58:33 AM

Fuel, I think you and I see eye to eye.

11/11/2005 2:11:32 AM

I know there are political tests through Google, but does anybody have a link that shows how people shift their political alignment as they age? I'm looking for more recent research as well (if available).

I do agree with one of synapse's points ... ideologically I'm one affiliation, pragmatically I'm another.

[Edited on November 11, 2005 at 6:38 AM. Reason : .]

11/11/2005 6:36:11 AM

Anarchist.

11/11/2005 7:03:10 AM

Quote :

"Businesses will not creat drugs to kill their customers. First off, there would be a public outcry once the people found out, and believe me the media would insure they found out."

Yes, once the people found out. How do they find out? They find out after the drug has killed several people - enough people for them to make the link back to the harmful drug. The FDA tries (and even fails from time to time) to catch harmful drugs before they claim their first victim.

Quote :

"Second off, it wouldn't be in their interest financially to kill their customers off with dangerous drugs because they want the drugs safe so people will keep coming back and buying more. The FDA, like most federal agencies is not needed."

I'll take a page out of salisburyboy's book on this one. It may be a bit far fetched but I can easily imagine corporate greed taking over to the point where pill A is used to treat symptom 1 but they purposely add some ingredients to cause symptom 2. Then they sell you pill B to treat that.

Quote :

"The highway system can be privatised. I'm sure it would be in alot better shape than it is now and would be repaired quicker as well."

I'm sitting here thinking about how that would work. Keep in mind the plan has to start with day 1, when there were no roads. The best thing I could come up with (admittadly in the 3 seconds I took to think about it) is putting up a toll booth every 10 miles. Who wants to deal with that? The other alternative is just as bad; taxing everyone to make sure everyone payed their fair share. Either way they would have to put up billions in up front capital in hopes that they would make most of it back. I think it is easier to just say, "Government, could you take care of this one for us?" irregardless of what kind of "big government" nut job you happen to be. Then again utilities seemed to work things out, but they do have a much easier method for charging for services as per use.

Back to the topic. What's wrong with being independent? You would think that the majority of people would be. I find it hard to believe that as different as any two people on the planet are that there are exactly two mutually exclusive parties and either one or the other covers the exact way everyone thinks. In fact the only way for there to be a clear division between two parties such that everyone in the world can say, "I either belong to one or the other" is if there were only two people in the world to begin with.


[Edited on November 11, 2005 at 8:00 AM. Reason : -]

11/11/2005 7:54:21 AM

Quote :

"I'm fiscally conservative but socially liberal, neither party fall into that category."

Welcome to the Libertarian Party.

11/11/2005 11:47:49 PM

I'm a registered Libertarian (or was until the party dissolved here)

however I'd most closely describe myself as social libertarian

11/11/2005 11:49:09 PM

Quote :

"WHAT IS THIS SHIT, YOU CANT BE BOTH. PICK A SIDE."

11/12/2005 1:14:27 AM

Quote :

"Yes, once the people found out. How do they find out? They find out after the drug has killed several people - enough people for them to make the link back to the harmful drug. The FDA tries (and even fails from time to time) to catch harmful drugs before they claim their first victim."

It would be in the companies best interest financially to make sure the drug was safe for human consumption before they released it because if it killed people they would go out of business because of boycotts and bad press.

Quote :

"I'll take a page out of salisburyboy's book on this one. It may be a bit far fetched but I can easily imagine corporate greed taking over to the point where pill A is used to treat symptom 1 but they purposely add some ingredients to cause symptom 2. Then they sell you pill B to treat that."

They already do that. Every drug causes side effects like cramps, bleeding, etc. and they have another drug to fix that as well. This nation is becoming dependent on pills. That's why I avoid using any medicines whether they be prescription or OTC as much as possible.

Quote :

"I'm sitting here thinking about how that would work. Keep in mind the plan has to start with day 1, when there were no roads. The best thing I could come up with (admittadly in the 3 seconds I took to think about it) is putting up a toll booth every 10 miles."

http://www.autostrade.it/en/index.html

http://www.slowtrav.com/italy/driving/autostrada.htm

Seems to work pretty well in Italy. Plus it's more fair because only the people who have cars pay the price for using the road. People who don't own a car are not forced to pay for something they don't use through taxes.

Quote :

" I think it is easier to just say, "Government, could you take care of this one for us?" irregardless of what kind of "big government" nut job you happen to be."

I don't think it is easier. I would gladly pay tolls to use the roads like above. I also think the bus system should be privatised as well. The CAT bus system here is horrible and never on time. Giving more power and responsiblity to the government on any level should be avoided at all costs. Giving the federal government more power is why the Patriot and Real ID acts have come into existence.

11/12/2005 1:39:43 AM

I also think we should pull out of the UN and kick it out of the US. We can turn that lot it sits on into a strip mall or something. The Federal Reserve should also be abolished as well and we should return to a silver backed currency.

11/12/2005 1:41:24 AM

Quote :

""I am a libertarian with a small l and a Republican with a capital R. And I am a Republican with a capital R on grounds of expediency, not on principle.""

A quote from Milton Friedman

America has a two party system and that is not going to change anytime soon. The parties can, do, and will change. It is far better to align yourself with one party or the other and work within that framework than it is to just throw your hands up in the air and bitch about it.

11/12/2005 2:29:44 AM

Quote :

"I am a libertarian with a small l and a Republican with a capital R."

11/12/2005 3:52:03 AM

Quote :

"It is far better to align yourself with one party"

ONLY if you are a politician. there's no reason for any other person to do so.

and that is particularly true in NC, where unafilliated voters are allowed to vote in either the dem. or rep. primary (but not both).

Maybe not in other states, but certainly in NC, the unafilliated voters have more power than party members. They can vote in the primary of the party that they wish to lose

[Edited on November 12, 2005 at 10:21 AM. Reason : s]

11/12/2005 10:20:32 AM

Quote :

" ONLY if you are a politician. there's no reason for any other person to do so. "

Or if you want to be politically active in any practical way.

And you have no power as an individual voter, the only way you have a chance of ever having the tiniest effect on political outcomes is to be active.

11/12/2005 11:56:09 AM

Quote :

"be a bastard and demand that they take the politicalcompass.org test. "independent" is an illusion of a broken two-party system"

I did that, and apparently, I'm on par with Nelson Mandela

11/14/2005 3:13:04 PM

I'd like to point out that it dosen't take balls to hold a political view. I could be a frigging white suprimisist and be a coward.

11/14/2005 5:30:38 PM