Any guys not Democrats and not Republican? That buck genres and look at issues case by case? Not beholden to either party?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2009 3:53 AM GMT
    I have been a guy that never joined a party. I am a liberal socially and fiscal conservative. Smoke dope, I could not care less. Live the life you want. Ask me to pay for your lifestyle? No. I earn my money. I will not pay taxes to support your lifestyle choices. But the truly needy? Yes. I will pay money, my own privately, to help the truly needy.

    But if you smoke dope all your life and then ask me to support you? It ain't gonna happen. You make your choices and you live with the consequences.

    That is just the way I am. Help the helpless. Not the intentionally helpless. They are on their own. But the truly helpless? Mentally impaired? Yes. As a society we should care for them.
  • pelotudo87

    Posts: 225

    Nov 18, 2009 5:04 AM GMT
    I would say I'm the same way. I'm independent and think that sometimes both parties do stuff thats really good/really stupid. However, I do tend to learn Democrat...but I am in no way permanently aligned with the party.

    Real issues are much much much too complicated to be seem through the limits of ideology.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2009 5:07 AM GMT
    Cool. I am the same.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2009 5:11 AM GMT
    i'm an independent. i don't register with parties. i vote for the person based on the issues and the degree of power s/he will have. i remain independent, because i cannot abide either of the parties that are in control. i would become a card carrying, dues paying, full member of the green party, but to what end? their entire platform is music to my ears... but to what end? i agree with everything they define in their belief system... but to what end? i would vote for them every time i could (but they don't run in NC)... but to what end?

    i feel compelled to pick between the lesser of two evils in all scenarios.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2009 5:13 AM GMT
    I tend to vote democrat but am too much of a free spirit to really have allegiance to any party. I don't like what the party system does to our government. I wish there was a way to have a no party system where any candidate had to create their own platform and say "here are the things I have done, and this is what I stand for." I know that is easier said than done.

    More than anything I wish that lobbying (in terms of giving money to parties or politicians) was done away with. I think that is the biggest problem with our government right now.
  • SanEsteban

    Posts: 454

    Nov 18, 2009 5:13 AM GMT
    I agree with the above. I am a complete independent. You could call me a liberal republican or a conservative democrat. I, too, am a fiscal conservative and liberal on social issues. I don't vote, as many do, because it is a party stand. I look at the individual issues, listen to all arguments and make up my mind independently. It is frustrating to me when people will only vote democrat or republican and not think for themselves.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2009 5:14 AM GMT
    Libertarian here bitches. (which is another way of saying extremely left on social issue and extremely right on fiscal issues) Even though that philosophy is usually linked with the Republican party, the Republicans never actually abide by those principles. They would be so awesome if they did.

    To the poster above, I also agree I would spend my money to help the needy, yet I would much rather donate a dollar to a private non-profit institute than to a government bureaucrat any day. It's just my preference.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2009 5:15 AM GMT
    Independent here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2009 5:19 AM GMT
    elgringo77 saidLibertarian here bitches. (which is another way of saying extremely left on social issue and extremely right on fiscal issues) Even though that philosophy is usually linked with the Republican party, the Republicans never actually abide by those principles. They would be so awesome if they did.

    To the poster above, I also agree I would spend my money to help the needy, yet I would much rather donate a dollar to a private non-profit institute than to a government bureaucrat any day. It's just my preference.



    i would have to disagree with your assessment of the libertarian alignment along the overarching issues you have described. i have found all the libertarians i know to be only one step above self-serving anarchists.
  • metta

    Posts: 39144

    Nov 18, 2009 5:22 AM GMT
    i was brought up to be a sagebrush republican (goverment stays out of personal lives and minimizes taxes), and have never registered as a democrat. However, I'm much more liberal than that. I belong to the green party but typically vote for democratic candidates. The green party is a little more liberal than me but it is close enough for me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2009 5:27 AM GMT
    Independent - Fiscally I am very conservative, and then take the other issues on a case by case basis. I listen, read and educate myself and then take a position which I can support and defend in light of my values and beliefs.

    I'm definitely in favor of less government involvement in the lives of others, and not only am I willing to help out less fortunate people, I fully support private charities and foundations that do so without either corrupt administrators or Washington Bureaucrats taking their "cut". Like several others above I am not and never will be in favor though, of giving a paycheck to someone who refuses to help themselves and is otherwise able to do so.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2009 5:34 AM GMT
    I'm pretty much a hardcore Democrat.
    But if there is a candidate that takes it too far like denying a Wal-mart time and time again, I will choose a Republican.

    I looove Wal-mart.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2009 5:49 AM GMT
    I won't vote Republican until they become advocates for secular government. I don't expect I will ever vote for a democrat until I am dead.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2009 7:55 AM GMT
    lol...I never advocate for anyone to vote anyway. Nor do I care. Vote anyway you want. I do not care. It makes no difference. The world belongs to them, not us, so who really cares?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2009 8:38 AM GMT
    sexylatinboi saidI looove Wal-mart.


    Most shocking thing ever on RJ.

    Libertarianism is nice in theory and doesn´t work in practice. Like Communism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2009 9:17 AM GMT
    Lostboy said
    sexylatinboi saidI looove Wal-mart.


    Most shocking thing ever on RJ.

    Libertarianism is nice in theory and doesn´t work in practice. Like Communism.


    I continue to say about phrases like that that if it doesn't work in practice then it wasn't good in theory.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2009 9:18 AM GMT
    Libertarian FTW
  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Nov 18, 2009 11:41 AM GMT
    jprichva saidLibertarianism is just a different flavor of right-wing conservatism.

    The dyed-in-the-wool libertarian believes that the only genuine authority inherent in the state is the power to protect property rights.

    But, um, if I have no property and my taxes go to pay for police protection for YOUR property, that's just a very different way for the government to have its hand in someone's pocket---only this time it's mine, not yours.

    Libertarianism is fundamentally dishonest. If you really think you shouldn't have to pay for someone else (like roads, healthcare, etc.) then I bloody well don't want to pay for your police protection. Hire your own damn security guards and stop ripping me off. Being against socialism cuts both ways.

    Wotta crock.


    Absolutely right. Every so-called "libertarian," in the sense the tools here mean it, would change his views when his house is burning down--and no fire dept. is there to help, or when he's being mugged--and no police are there to assist, or he's had children--and no school is there to educate them. Libertarianism is just another way of saying, "I want to be greedy but come up with some BS 'political philosophy' to justify it."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2009 11:52 AM GMT
    I don't understand Independents. I get that you are not happy with either party and that certain issues drive you and all that jazz. But why not register as a Dem or a Republican so you can vote in primaries?

    That is a whole extra vote! Why would you give up a whole extra vote?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2009 12:44 PM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidI don't understand Independents. I get that you are not happy with either party and that certain issues drive you and all that jazz. But why not register as a Dem or a Republican so you can vote in primaries?


    I'm an independent but I have no problem registering in one or the other primary if there's a specific candidate I want to support or oppose.

    The two-party system makes it inevitable that each party must be a coalition of different interest groups. In the past both parties acknowledged this and it wasn't required that all members accept a uniform ideology. The best example is the pre-civil rights Democratic Party which was a coalition of Northern blue-collar ethnics and Southerners who in fact agreed on very little except that they weren't Republicans,
    At present both parties have lost their former inclusiveness. They've imposed litmus tests and if you don't toe the party line you're outcast. Exhibit A is Joe Lieberman. Exhibit B is Dede Scozzafava.
    But if you are a thoughtful person who wants to take each issue on its own merits you can't honestly embrace the entire platform of either party. Why should your views on climate change, the economy, immigration, terrorism, health care, gay rights, government entitlements, school vouchers, and so on, all be in lockstep when some issues have nothing to do with each other?
    But if you believe in gay rights, abortion rights, acting on climate change on the one hand, and smaller, less intrusive government on the other, you have no choice but to be an independent.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2009 1:02 PM GMT
    TexDef07 said

    I'm an independent but I have no problem registering in one or the other primary if there's a specific candidate I want to support or oppose.

    The two-party system makes it inevitable that each party must be a coalition of different interest groups. In the past both parties acknowledged this and it wasn't required that all members accept a uniform ideology. The best example is the pre-civil rights Democratic Party which was a coalition of Northern blue-collar ethnics and Southerners who in fact agreed on very little except that they weren't Republicans,
    At present both parties have lost their former inclusiveness. They've imposed litmus tests and if you don't toe the party line you're outcast. Exhibit A is Joe Lieberman. Exhibit B is Dede Scozzafava.
    But if you are a thoughtful person who wants to take each issue on its own merits you can't honestly embrace the entire platform of either party. Why should your views on climate change, the economy, immigration, terrorism, health care, gay rights, government entitlements, school vouchers, and so on, all be in lockstep when some issues have nothing to do with each other?
    But if you believe in gay rights, abortion rights, acting on climate change on the one hand, and smaller, less intrusive government on the other, you have no choice but to be an independent.




    I'm not sure that's true on its face, at least not as it applies to the Democrats. While the Republicans have become much more ideologically homogeneous, the difficulty in signing Democrats onto the health care bill winding its way through Congress is exhibit A in the ideological diversity of that party. The Democrats have a far broader ideological base, with some Democrats being more conservative than some Republicans and a large, influential base of "blue-dog Democrats" that wields its conservative power within the party quite well (for all the damage I think that does to policy).

    Joe Lieberman is an aberration and not, I think, representative of how people with different views are treated within the Democratic Party. I mean, when the guy actively campaigns against his party--not just disagrees with certain points but willingly tries to weaken the party--why exactly should he be considered a Democrat? I think the response to not consider him one is exactly right, because he's not, but that does not represent how conservatives or ideological differences are treated at large within the Democratic Party.

    If you want to consider yourself an independent, go for it, but drop the sanctimonious "I'm so much more thoughtful than people who claim a party" language; it's tired and trite.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2009 1:33 PM GMT
    You know, not everyone toes their party line.... some people do have their own minds.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2009 1:51 PM GMT
    I don't follow any one theory or party or perspective, i take what i like from an amalgamation of theoretical perspectives, creating a ... hybrid.

    I am a Neo-Gramscian-Social Constructivist-neo-Marxist-radical-third-wave-feminist-anarchist


    ... so i dont have a party.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2009 2:17 PM GMT
    The thing that troubles me about a discussion in government is the assumption that a particular party/philosophy is equal on all scales, like a fractal.

    I've been shit on by more than a few life-sucking hagfish whose contribution to society is unquestionably in the debit column. For that reason I have little regard for such a person, and feel no remorse when ill befalls them. At times I've even fantasized about their, you know, demise.

    The problem I see is institutionalizing that sentiment, and profiling a segment of society as being homogeneously useless.

    On a person-to-person scale, such individuals detract from my existence a disproportionately large amount. But on a national scale, this segment of society is a drop in the bucket, and manageable--institutionally--by sharing the load.

    We humans chronically overemphasize the importance of really small numbers.

    In that regard I'm a social conservative on the personal scale, but a social liberal on the national scale. My disgust for a person doesn't have to translate into a disgust for a population.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2009 2:23 PM GMT
    dancerjack said
    i feel compelled to pick between the lesser of two evils in all scenarios.



    I agree with the OP. Color me the same.
    And Dancerjack: Lewis Black said it best: