Shared publicly  - 
 
Democrats piss me off as much as Republicans do. Independents, FTW.
77
Abdelmajid Karim's profile photoGio Lombard's profile photoDrew Perreault's profile photoMichael Dennis's profile photo
72 comments
 
one of them has to piss you off a little bit more :P
 
Wish voting for someone outside the big two wasn't throwing away a vote. :(
 
I'm seriously thinking Gary Johnson.
 
Our country wasn't founded on left or right. It was created for the US citizens to fight amongst each other. If you go too far towards either side you get socialism or communism.
 
Then you must be a Libertarian :)
 
+vicente reyes actually that would be Communism and facism.  And no, there isn't an appreciable difference.
 
Ron Paul 2012. For me. Everyone is free to choose whatever candidate that suits them. ;-). The news won't show Ron Paul's delegates votes. Like in Nevada 17- Ron Paul, 5- Romney.
 
Sometimes I wonder if we all have to be frozen for 100 years to actually see any change in the U.S. system.  It saddens me - R
 
+vicente reyes the decision to ignore the Ron Paul supporters was made by the RNC and Romney campaign.  The media covered them being pissed and what not but ultimately it was their own party that fucked them over not the media.
 
Moderates do not do well in today's America.
 
Actually Ron Paul is still going, even if the media doesn't go to any of his big events that fill up stadiums as big as the DNC and RNC events.
 
His events are streamed online, either off of his page or live on YouTube. Theirs many ways to see every event.
 
None of them would know the truth of they tripped over it.
 
The Democrats are not a good political party, but there is a huge difference between them and the Republican Party, which has gone far off the deep end. I'm independent, but there is no way to compare them on the same level. The current Republican Party is a theocratic movement.

The Democrats are not even left wing -- they are probably about center-right by international standards.

Ron Paul says some nice things that people want to hear, but if you look beneath the surface, he is a right wing extremist and theocrat.
 
+Christopher Rizzo I've heard that if Ron Paul doesn't back down that the libertarian will back off and let Ron Paul have his spot. But if he does backdown then he will probably indorse the libertarian.

Sorry if I got it all mixed up. Lol
 
Most independents are writing in Ron Paul, voting Gary Johnson, or abstaining this year.  You have a few weeks to decide. :D
 
Oooorrrr... you can just write yourself in - I've heard of people doing that... and writing in Mickey mouse.

+Josh Cohen Not the independents that I know.  After seeing Romney cheating at the RNC and his lawyers trying to knock Gary Johnson off the ballot, I can almost guarantee that Romney will win... even if it's through cheating.

I'm voting for GJ, but only for nostalgic reasons.
 
Ron Paul won't win and as long as the RP supporters are split between GJ and RP, I doubt either will win, although GJ will probably get a record number of votes for the Libertarian party this year
 
+Josh Cohen and that's your opinion sir. If you were to flip that on its head then you'd see what half of America sees right now. I can't tell you how many extremist liberals have targeted conservative bloggers bombarding them relentlessly with hate mail death threats, one case where a man had his phone # stolen and was used to call 911 saying he was going to kill his wife. He gave them the mans address and police were dispatched on the scene.....except there was no scene and this blogger was nearly arrested. I'll try and find the story and link in a little bit.
 
The problem with independents is that they only have one leg to stand on.
 
The problem with the either-or crowd is that they're to busy fighting over semantics to see that there's no real difference.

No offense, but I became "independent" when the first president I voted for passed the Patriot Act (a.k.a. repeal the 4th amendment act).  I found my self siding more with the libertarians.

In VT, usually there aren't too many choices, so I just vote for the one who's views are closer to the constitution - essentially making me an independent.  I would have voted republican this year, but they appointed Romney instead of getting him nominated.
 
I'll be voting for who starts getting up to the top against Romney or Obama. Gary Johnson or Ron Paul. I'm more towards ron Paul though, so we'll see. ;-)
 
+John Garrison Really? Wow.  Not really surprised but now that this has come out, I wonder if this will give Gary Johnson a much needed boost.
 
The only way you can vote Ron Paul is to write him in. He's not campaigning and there are at least 7 states that don't allow write-ins at all.  Gary Johnson, who RP calls "wonderful" is on the ballot on all fifty states - no thanks to Romney who's been trying to sue him off the ballot in Iowa and Virginia.

I'll reiterate what I said, I have very little hope that either will win, but I won't vote for Romney or Obama.  Both are so corrupt I can't even understand those who vote for one just so they can't have the other.
 
+Nancie Neal I'm not sure if it will give him a boost. The RNC spitting in the face of Ron Paul and his delegates did, but I don't know if their phony platform change did. And I'm not sure Democrats are going to wise up to the fact that their candidate, and now their party, doesn't really reflect their views. I still see Obama fans who bashed Bush hard on the Patriot defending the resigning of it, and then the NDAA 2012, and then the kill list, by their guy. 
 
funny funny..gary johnson pops up ..
 
+Nancie Neal then you haven't seen any of his campaigns. Like I said, the news fails to cover his campaigns. Their where artists and other people talking just like in the DNC/RNC. research a little. YouTube/Google.
 
+Abdelmajid Karim we have a few third parties, but the last time a third party candidate (actually, an independent) came even remotely close to winning the election, the Republicans and Democrats took control of the presidential debates to keep third parties out and the media will not cover them, so their chances of winning or even getting their views out there are slim.
 
But since theirs other outlets of news, like Google + and facebook, and other social sites, things might change for the better.
 
+vicente reyes yes, I think that there will be a time in the future that the debates are more irrelevant and alternative views will be more embraced. Or I suppose it is more correct to say that the people will realize that there are other parties that better fit their views. I can't imagine a single progressive voting for Obama over Jill Stein, for example. The Constitution party should be able to siphon a ton of votes from the evangelical wing of the Republican party, the Libertarian party should get a lot of moderates. As TV becomes less and less relevant and social media becomes increasingly a source of information, I'm sure these things will begin to happen. It can't happen soon enough for me. Even the parties I disagree with deserve a voice in politics. Open discussion of all ideas is how you move forward. 
 
+Nancie Neal - most Independents will vote for Obama. It's simple math. Independents are a huge percentage of the population--even a majority in some states, like Massachusetts. Independent doesn't mean right wing, and Ron Paul is on the far right. I think that right-leaning voters should take your advice and vote for GJ or RP though.

+Ethan Bissette - when you say "extremist liberals" you are losing me. The Democratic Party itself is not liberal. It's no further left than Center on the political spectrum. The policies of modern Democrats are pretty much the policies of Republicans before the Republicans completely went off the deep end.

If you want to see it in clearer perspective, you don't have to wait for social media. Just start reading foreign media instead of just a narrow spectrum of US media. Most of the media in the US is owned by about six companies, and it generally ranges from bad to terrible. That is why Americans generally don't have a clue about what is going on in the world.
Translate
 
+Josh Cohen when you call Libertarians right-leaning, it depends on whether you are talking about fiscal or social issues. Libertarians are pretty far left (in the American spectrum, which you are spot on about) on social issues that do not also include economic issues. I don't know many socially right-leaning people that support gay marriage, oppose the drug wars, the foreign wars, the patriot act, the indefinite detention clause, gambling, and a woman's right to choose. 
 
This is a good post. More people need to realize that the whole system is wrong. Forget patent reform, we need a U.S. revolution (or resolution if you prefer). I can't fully put my vote into any party they come up with. Hell when this country was founded there were Republicans, Democrats, Whigs, and a few others. We know which 2 won popularity but neither are right. Gary Johnson seems a fair middle ground in my opinion, but nothing is certain these days and the only ideology I would impress upon people is that something is truly wrong with our country and too many people are still blind/ignorant.
 
+John Garrison - I don't know much about Gary Johnson, but I know that Ron Paul is on the far right in terms of many social issues, even ones that don't affect the economy.

I like your comment about having open discussions about things.
 
+John Garrison - If you support "gay marriage, oppose the drug wars, the foreign wars, the patriot act, the indefinite detention clause, gambling, and a woman's right to choose", how do you differ from a progressive? Just that government should step back so that everything can be privatized?
 
I differ from a progressive on social/economic issues in the sense that I wouldn't really want a single payer healthcare system. I think we need to take a fair look at the underlying costs of our healthcare expense. We can't cover the people we do with medicare for less than 7.5% of our GDP, yet countries with largely single payer systems are covering everyone for 3-4%. Simply mandating that everyone has insurance doesn't fix that, even if it is provided by the government.
On purely fiscal issues, I'm not going to say that everything should be privatized. I am extremely opposed to privatized prisons, for example. But I do think that the government needs to stay out of business more than they do. I don't think we should have spent $81 billion from 1995-2011 subsidizing corn for example. All that does is put HFCS in all of our products instead of sugar, and hurt the sugar industry. In that case, the government is picking a side in business. 
I think we should have let the banks fail. Or at the very least held them accountable after the fact, instead we gave them cabinet positions. I don't think regulation is the solution because their lobbyists (and now their members in our government) are the ones writing the regulations. Deregulation worked in the sense that the bad actors failed, and would have went bankrupt. Life would have sucked for a few years, like it did in Iceland when they let their banks fail. But it sends the message that you don't get to do bad things and get bailed out. The banks that came in to take the place of the bad ones would likely not have made the same mistake. Now they all might start acting recklessly.
 
From what little I've seen of both conventions, the Democrat one was significantly less of a farce.
Kim H
 
Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are the best choices out there. Democrats and Republicans says more than they can do thanks to the lobbyism.
D & R are ruining America for god sake!
 
+Lindsay Donaghe Third-party votes are only a waste as long as people, like yourself, believe that they are. The two major parties have no special standing save that given to them by voters.
 
I'm just tired of all the debating. Imagine how STRONG this country would be if both sides worked Together.
 
+AG Gardner Are they debating? If they were having honest, real debates, they'd get somewhere. But they're just vilifying the other party and obstructing any real progress.
 
Either you have empathy or you have apathy It's usually your personality that helps you swing one way or the other not congress.
 
I agree ...politics in general ....whether it is on your job, done within your church, practiced in the military or experienced while you were in school, sucks.  Yet, in irony, politics provides balance to our existence.  We can all sing together but, we can't talk at the same time.....someone needs to lead. After all the campaigning is over and the leader is selected (whether a good choice or a poor one) ... life goes on....and as human beings we will continue to breathe air, love, laugh , cry and try to survive.  We will get through it....never give up on  GODS ability to Deliver....you have faith...you can always hope.
 
+John Garrison - that all sounds very left wing and progressive to me, except for the health care. :)

What health care system would you prefer? What do you propose to do about the 45,000 Americans who are dying every year from lack of health care?
 
I have seen Gary Johnson Campaigns and I think it would be wise for him to capitalize on the DNC farce as well as the RNC.

But I've met too many "Gee, we don't want 4 more years for Obama, so I'll vote for Romney." and "Romney is a Scam and we already know what we have, so I'm going to vote for Obama."  Both think a third party will let the other "more evil one" win.

You know, the lesser of two evils between the Nazis and Communist parties was the Nazis.  They killed less people and according to Hitler, The Socialist party (a.k.a. Nazis) believed in some property rights, the Communists did not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler

As long as people are seriously afraid of the "other", it will be difficult for them to vote a third party and Gary Johnson, while getting a record number of votes, it will be too little too late. By the end of the next four years, it's likely any ability for a third party to succeed will be squashed by the next president -regardless on who wins.

Not to sound depressing or anything. ;P
 
+Nancie Neal - "socialism" does not mean "Nazism". There is a huge difference between an authoritarian government that does not value human life and a democratic government that does value human life. Those were some of the more important things in common between the Nazis and many of the Communist parties.

Look at Scandanavia, Germany, Austria, etc. for other examples. "Socialism" is not what caused the atrocities--other factors did.
 
Gary and Jill and looking like great options. It's time to move our country away from the corrupted dems and wreckpublicans.
 
+Josh Cohen Independents should not be underestimated, yes....but, their vote going to a particular person is never a given.  Independents in my opinion,  realize the eyes of our government still appear to be festering sores because the thin line of hate which stained our our constitution still prevails today.  In our constitutions writing it reads all "men" are created equal.  Which was only the truth for white men. That force was and still is the undercurrent, still trying to undermine the opportunity for shared growth and equal opportunity for ALL people in this country. Independents are just how it reads....people who think independently of being labeled in one group or the other...these people vote big picture and long term results that are closest to being fair to ALL the citizens of these UNITED States.+Jared Kapheim  Who are the moderates....are they the neutral ones....the people that haven't decided who they are voting for yet?
 
+Josh Cohen  I was just pointing out the fallacy of "voting for the lesser of two evils", not that socialism is Nazisim.  Although "Nazi" was short for "National Sozialistische Deutsch Arbeiter-Partei" or "National Socialist German Worker's Party".  Hitler was supposedly Socialist, but really, he was more of a fascist.

Ron Paul is actually more "liberal" on social issues.  He doesn't believe the Government should regulate morals. He does believe in states rights and thinks that health care should be left to the states.

Abortion, in his opinion is a moral issue.  He, being an obstetrician and Christian, thinks it is wrong, but knows full well that it's hard to regulate and it should be left up to the states.  Same with marriage and street drugs.You can't dictate morality.

Gary Johnson is a libertarian, but not an extreme one. His philosophy is similar to Ron Paul, but he thinks the Federal Government can override the issues because of people inalienable rights. However, he as mentioned regulating marijuana like alcohol and tobacco.  The differences between the two are pretty much semantics, some say RP is pro-life and GJ is pro-choice but both would have try to push in the same legislation in regards to abortion.

That said, there isn't much they can do personally to a lot of the laws on the books, but they do have the power of Veto and stop the undeclared wars. They can also eliminate all the useless "czars" that the President has appointed and if the supreme court Justices decide to retire, they can appoint new ones.

Neither will be able to pass too much legislation as both parties will not be willing to admit that the people don't want their garbage anymore. It won't

As for Independents, go to "DailyPaul.com".  A lot of them are independent, as a matter of fact, that was the biggest complaint, that the republicans are actually throwing away the largest "independent" vote in history.  Quite a few are Democrats who are disappointed with Obama, Most are definitely (or used to be) republicans.

Most of my friends are independents but they are so disenfranchised with the system that they are questioning the insanity of voting at all this time.

And I'm sure that a lot independents are gong to vote Obama, although most will vote for Obama because there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of choices, not because they are happy with him. A few have mentioned voting for Obama as they don't like slow and painful deaths as Romney, at best, will just slow things down.  Seriously, most of these people think that there's no hope at all and to be quite honest with you, I can see why.

I've always tell people that I'm a libertarian, as it pretty much reflects my political views, but I never vote a straight party ticket  and in VT, you don't have to register as any party. So, I guess, technically it makes me an independent.  I'm not voting for Obama (or Romney for that matter).
 
+Nancie Neal - Here are some of Ron Paul's right wing positions on social issues:

* anti marriage equality
* no protection against sexual harassment
* no protection against racism
* but: states have the right to ban "sodomy"
* anti-choice
* anti gun control
* keep "don't ask, don't tell"
* states are allowed to ban access to contraception
* society should let people die if they can't take care of themselves

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

Giving abortion decisions to the states would result in its banning in many parts of the country and incredible suffering for many women.

I'm not saying that all of Ron Paul's ideas are bad--only that he is unfit to be President. His ideas are based purely on dogma ("Constitution good, Government bad") mixed with a bit too much religion, and not on considering at what works in practice in many countries around the world.

Also, I can't believe that Ron Paul never saw the racist garbage that was published in his newsletters.

I think the only realistic, positive outcome of this election is to keep the far right extremists (Tea Party) out of the Government by reelecting Obama.

It should be pretty obvious by now that no president is going to fix problems like: the bloated military budget, the violations of the Fourth Amendment, the unprovoked foreign wars, etc. If people want those problems fixed, it's a democracy and citizens have the ability to organize directly for or against policies that they have an opinion about. The Government itself won't fix these problems if left to themselves, but that doesn't mean that government is bad. The reason the Government sucks is that the citizens are apathetic and aren't involving themselves in the political process beyond casting votes in elections that are designed to maintain the status quo regardless of which side wins.
 
Lol some false stuff. Ron Paul has his religion, but he states that the government should not be able to tell people who they should marry. And why would you want gun laws? Gun laws don't give American citizens their right to bare arms. You need to read up on each issue and how he has stated each one in his words. Not someone else's thoughts on what he thinks.
 
Women that get pregnant and didn't get rapped or by random guys, need to own up to being a mother, they had sex, they choose to get pregnant.
 
+Josh Cohen You haven't done your research then.  Ron Paul has Explicitly said that the federal government shouldn't be involved in moral issues.  He said that right on Jay Leno of all places! This means gay marriage, marijuana, etc ,etc.
 
Ron Paul on the Tonight Show w/ Jay Leno Part 1 of 3 (12-15-11)

This is actually about everything he stood for, the first one has a comment on gay marriage, (9:44) where he EXPLICITLY says that the Federal government should stay out of it.

Abortion should be handled by the states. While does believe that abortion is a violent act (although he has no qualms about "the day after pill" or birth control) he thinks it should be handled by the state.  In other words, the federal government really shouldn't be involved in the issue - at all.

Interestingly enough +vicente reyes not only pregnancy rates are down among college kids, but the percentage of abortions to pregnancy is also down. It is the same group who has the highest percentage of Ron Paul supporters.

Interesting how morals seem to go up when people get into the liberty movement.
 
Ron Paul says that federal government shouldn't be involved in these issues, which just opens the opportunity for state governments to totally screw people over with backwards laws.

Ideal government is supposed to protect people against these things. Without a strong federal government, something will fill the vacuum, and that something will likely be corporatocracy. Basically, federal government should be protecting us against private companies, and others, who are already trying to dismantle the system so that they can take a larger piece.

It should also protect us from extremists in local governments. In a country of this size, some really messed up things happen. The right to be free from discrimination should be universal.

I'm not into the "if you screw up in life, you deserve to suffer" mentality, because my welfare is dependent on the welfare of my neighborhood, city, state, and country. If my neighbors are dying in the street, my situation gets worse too. A free-for-all has no successful precedent in the modern world that I know of. When you remove strong, competent government, you get Somalia:
http://youtu.be/7QDv4sYwjO0

Ron Paul is just about "states rights and small government" in all situations, but there are few studies or examples to go by other than a few fictional novels by Ayn Rand. These ideas rely on "magic dust" that just does not exist. It doesn't matter how nice the ideas sound, the real world does not work this way.

For me, "independent" means that our policies should be based on studies about what works in various cities and countries, not on adherence to any specific ideology. If you look at the most successful countries in the world in terms of education, health care, crime, etc., they are not following these militantly "small government" policies or just letting people die on the street because they screwed up in some way.

Also, a weak Federal Government would surely be the downfall of the US. The country is already divided, with separatist movements in many states. The common cultural identity that we gain by having an organized education system and laws helps hold us together.
 
+vicente reyes And????... some men can't: picture themselves as, follow through as, or want to be Fathers....yet, he hangs the "shingle" out anyway....should legal legislation be passed to give each male pubescent a focus test on responsibility?  And if they fail ...castrate them as a precaution?  If a man didn't engage in the deed.... a woman would not have to pay for it. It is only by an act of God, she is the only one strong enough to carry the child, so it should be her entitlement because of her Creator to exercise her oen free will  If you think you are powerful enough to play GOD than you don't get my vote...because you do not ring  true to my heart and I still have one!
 
Just a FYI: http://youtu.be/giE_pPFwDMM (sorry, I got busy the last few days, leading up to the last two in eliminating a persistent rootkit virus.

+Josh Cohen I don't have time to go on a long rant, but keep in mind that California is probably the least backwards state (in your mind) and it's pretty much bankrupt. Vermont is another one, but good luck in finding a decent paying job and if you get sick, good luck sitting in the waiting room in the hospital. The state has also made some major cutbacks it has been difficult to get something that works well and instead, people have to settle for "good enough"

We are fortunate enough that My husband just happens to work at GE and has the skill to get him a decent paycheck.  We have insurance, but lost a lot of the benefits when Obamnycare passed - and costs went up quite a bit.

We can't sell our house for at least what we owe on it, so we are kind of stuck here.

Consider looking up "Libertarianism: A primer" buy David Boaz. And "I am John Galt" by Donald Luskin and Andrew Greta.
 
I'd use Scandinavia and some Western European countries as an example, not California. The US is far from #1 in most rankings on education, health, crime, etc.

Even if there are serious flaws, Vermont and Massachusetts are two of the best health care states:
http://www.webmd.com/news/20070613/how-states-rank-on-health-care

Not all government health care is good, but some government health care has worked very well. No system is perfect. Imperfect government health care is better than "I guess you will just have to die in the streets, because if you didn't obtain health care you didn't take 'personal responsibility'".

I'm genuinely "independent", and not really interested in adherence to one ideology or another. I want to see practical examples of what works. Show me an example of extreme small government that has actually worked in practice. Read Shock Doctrine to see practical examples of how it hasn't work in South America. Tell me exactly how citizens in Mississippi (to use one of the most troubled states as an example) will have their basic human rights protected from extremists and private companies without intervention from the Federal Government.

Also, no one has answered my question: what do you propose to do about the 45,000 Americans who are dying every year due to lack of health care? Let them die on the street? Waste tax dollars by having policies that send them to emergency rooms for basic medical care?
 
Also, a book that has "John Galt" in the title sounds like it's going to be full of dogma. Ayn Rand was a pseudo-philosopher who never backed up her arguments other than by creating fictional worlds in novels. Fictional novels cannot be the basis for political policy.
 
I was living in Austria recently. Go ask some Austrians what they think about their government health care. :)

No system is, or ever will be, perfect, but it is incredibly relieving, in many ways, to live in a society where you can have a lack of savings, but still know that society is civilized enough to have resources to turn to when things go bad. That money in your bank account is yours to spend -- not to worry about in case of an emergency.

If you are living paycheck-to-paycheck in the US and not making enough for health care, you are screwed. If you are doing the same in Austria, you don't have to worry.

When people in society think about the quality of their society as a whole, and not just about "the individual", things work much better.
 
+Josh Cohen Josh un/fortunately I am older than you appear to be.  I no longer find compassion a virtue.  I am retired and I have a  pension.   I am collecting my Social Security, Medicare and have access to Medicaid NOW.  I am standing at the gates of heaven and holding on to everything I have..... trying to take it with me. Frankly I am a little tired of hearing about the woes of people who can't find a job or who have lost a job.  I don't care about you or your children's health, education or welfare.   Don't let this wheel chair fool ya...I run this country!
Add a comment...