50 Reasons To Register Independent

[DKW 86 7,726]

http://ivn.us/2012/10/22/50-reasons-register-independent/?utm_source=FB&utm_medium=Weekend+Post&utm_term=50reasons&utm_campaign=FB

Many states are basically insolvent. America is sitting on $13 trillion of debt. The Great Recession is still underway, and the same old partisan bickering prevents lawmakers from finding solutions. The time has come for American voters to reform a broken system and plot a new course. It’s time to launch a revolution and register independent.

Here are 50 reasons why:

1. Now that there is an open primary in California, residents of that state no longer need to be a member of a party to participate in the primary process.

2. Neither party ever shakes up the status quo anyways.

3. You shouldn’t be required to join a private organization to participate in public policy.

4. The Founding Fathers feared and warned against parties (or what they called factions back then).

5. If you drop the partisan label, it’s easier to drop the partisan mindset and avoid partisan reflexes to good or bad policy.

6. The two main parties aren’t all that different anyways.

7. From 2001-2005, the DNC raised $162 million. What if all that money had just directly gone toward causes Democrats support, like for instance, setting up a charitable trust to provide health insurance for the children of low income families?

8. And what if all the millions raised by the RNC just directly went toward causes Republicans would support like providing medicalcare, counseling, financial aid, and adoption services to young mothers who don’t want to abort, but cannot afford to carry to term?

9. Parties are often more interested in power than policy.

10. Parties love to play red team / blue team. For many party functionaries, it’s more about getting people with the “right” letter next to their name elected, and less about making life better for the people they represent.

MORE...

[telling tiger 156]

It is American, within reason we can do what we want., BUT, The indies I'm familiar with are just as partisan and "factioned" as anyone else on the landscape of American politics. On this very forum ,the language and rhetoric is as vitriolic as any provided by anyone else. So, I'm calling

[DKW 86 7,726]

It is American, within reason we can do what we want., BUT, The indies I'm familiar with are just as partisan and "factioned" as anyone else on the landscape of American politics. On this very forum ,the language and rhetoric is as vitriolic as any provided by anyone else. So, I'm calling

How so? Examples?

[telling tiger 156]

I'm not opposed at all to open an open primary. Consider rhetoric in this way, when people express their most deeply held beliefs as absolute certainty, it is as likely to turn people away from the point of view being presented as draw them to it. Religion is an easy example for and on this board. The most ardent rhetoric, is not always the most reasoned. Communication can be persuasive and an art, not effective as a sledgehammer.

[DKW 86 7,726]

Well, last i checked God wasnt running for anything...so i think you will be safe from all the evil he wants for you...

[telling tiger 156]

Nonsensical response. Nothing in either post said anything about me fearing, "all the evil he wants for me". I never suggested, "God was running for anything". Yawn.

[DKW 86 7,726]

Well so far you havent shown anything other then empty talk about the evils of "indies" and their "vitriolic rhetoric that is no different from the other parties."

So,we must assume that you are ok with the partisanship in the US today or you are just too cool to care.

Otherwise, you would have us do what exactly? After years working for and with both parties, i no longer care about the parties bu i do care about the partisanship. Usually, the wins for the ole Red or Blue are everybody's else's losses.

IE: In 2007 & 2008 supposedly Wall Streeters were handing out "predatory loans" and those rascally Reps/Bushies were to blame. 2008 Elections come, Wall Street backs Obama heavily. 2009-2010 Wall Street makes more cash than they did in 8 years under Bush. 2009-2013, as yet, there has not been even one prosecution of the Wall Street Crowd for anything. John Sterwart ripped this administration apart after all the hyperbole of the 2008 Campaign. Still no prosecutions. Wall Street still making obscene profits. The Economy as a whole muddling along.

Someone with a little curiousity might want to know what the differeence between the two parties is these days. As Stewart observed, there really is none. The Press bashes any attempts to organize a real Third Party whether by the Greens or the Tea Party, etc. So we are stuck with the status quo. a corrupt and non-functioning govt. And you are okay with that? If not, then what would you have us do?

[Auburn85 434]

I'm not sure if there is a universal standard or definition to describe a political indy. I'll take a stab and say it's someone who can criticize and call out people or politicians who align most closely to their political beliefs. Or can agree with someone who doesn't align closely with our own political beliefs.

[telling tiger 156]

I'm not sure if there is a universal standard or definition to describe a political indy. I'll take a stab and say it's someone who can criticize and call out people or politicians who align most closely to their political beliefs. Or can agree with someone who doesn't align closely with our own political beliefs.

This I completely agree with and is likely the closest to what I would hope to see. A squealing wheel mostly makes noise and no difference. How is my dismissing the SAME useless vitriol as any other on the political landscape(<<<damn near a quote big man, lol) rhetoric signaling to you I'm ok with partisanship, dkw? lol. You are still making ZERO sense. Save your sermon for someone else, I'm not reading it an do not really find myself interested in it.

[homersapien 11,812]

I'm not sure if there is a universal standard or definition to describe a political indy. I'll take a stab and say it's someone who can criticize and call out people or politicians who align most closely to their political beliefs. Or can agree with someone who doesn't align closely with our own political beliefs.

This I completely agree with and is likely the closest to what I would hope to see. A squealing wheel mostly makes noise and no difference. How is my dismissing the SAME useless vitriol as any other on the political landscape(<<<damn near a quote big man, lol) rhetoric signaling to you I'm ok with partisanship, dkw? lol. You are still making ZERO sense. Save your sermon for someone else, I'm not reading it an do not really find myself interested in it.

Apparently, he thinks it will make a difference if we "register independent". :-\ I didn't even know you could do that.

But I'll volunteer a small step that would go a long way to putting us right: Support a constitutional amendment to nullify the "Citizens United" decision. I wonder how many from each party would support that?

Mitch McConnell obviously doesn't.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/03/mitch-mcconnell-praises-citizens-united/?_r=0

[AUloggerhead 2,356]

I'm not sure if there is a universal standard or definition to describe a political indy. I'll take a stab and say it's someone who can criticize and call out people or politicians who align most closely to their political beliefs. Or can agree with someone who doesn't align closely with our own political beliefs.

This I completely agree with and is likely the closest to what I would hope to see. A squealing wheel mostly makes noise and no difference. How is my dismissing the SAME useless vitriol as any other on the political landscape(<<<damn near a quote big man, lol) rhetoric signaling to you I'm ok with partisanship, dkw? lol. You are still making ZERO sense. Save your sermon for someone else, I'm not reading it an do not really find myself interested in it.

Apparently, he thinks it will make a difference if we "register independent". :-\/> I didn't even know you could do that.

But I'll volunteer a small step that would go a long way to putting us right: Support a constitutional amendment to nullify the "Citizens United" decision. I wonder how many from each party would support that?

Mitch McConnell obviously doesn't.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/03/mitch-mcconnell-praises-citizens-united/?_r=0

Support a constitutional amendment to repeal the Citizens United decision? You do realize the 1st Amendment was the basis for that decision, don't you? So, you want a constitutional amendment to repeal or at least restrict the 1st Amendment? Be careful what you wish for ...

[homersapien 11,812]

I'm not sure if there is a universal standard or definition to describe a political indy. I'll take a stab and say it's someone who can criticize and call out people or politicians who align most closely to their political beliefs. Or can agree with someone who doesn't align closely with our own political beliefs.

This I completely agree with and is likely the closest to what I would hope to see. A squealing wheel mostly makes noise and no difference. How is my dismissing the SAME useless vitriol as any other on the political landscape(<<<damn near a quote big man, lol) rhetoric signaling to you I'm ok with partisanship, dkw? lol. You are still making ZERO sense. Save your sermon for someone else, I'm not reading it an do not really find myself interested in it.

Apparently, he thinks it will make a difference if we "register independent". :-\/> I didn't even know you could do that.

But I'll volunteer a small step that would go a long way to putting us right: Support a constitutional amendment to nullify the "Citizens United" decision. I wonder how many from each party would support that?

Mitch McConnell obviously doesn't.

http://takingnote.bl...ns-united/?_r=0

Support a constitutional amendment to repeal the Citizens United decision? You do realize the 1st Amendment was the basis for that decision, don't you? So, you want a constitutional amendment to repeal or at least restrict the 1st Amendment? Be careful what you wish for ...

No, I want an amendment that restricts citizenship to individual people. This would nullify Citizens United without touching the !st.

[AUloggerhead 2,356]

I'm not sure if there is a universal standard or definition to describe a political indy. I'll take a stab and say it's someone who can criticize and call out people or politicians who align most closely to their political beliefs. Or can agree with someone who doesn't align closely with our own political beliefs.

This I completely agree with and is likely the closest to what I would hope to see. A squealing wheel mostly makes noise and no difference. How is my dismissing the SAME useless vitriol as any other on the political landscape(<<<damn near a quote big man, lol) rhetoric signaling to you I'm ok with partisanship, dkw? lol. You are still making ZERO sense. Save your sermon for someone else, I'm not reading it an do not really find myself interested in it.

Apparently, he thinks it will make a difference if we "register independent". :-\/> I didn't even know you could do that.

But I'll volunteer a small step that would go a long way to putting us right: Support a constitutional amendment to nullify the "Citizens United" decision. I wonder how many from each party would support that?

Mitch McConnell obviously doesn't.

http://takingnote.bl...ns-united/?_r=0

Support a constitutional amendment to repeal the Citizens United decision? You do realize the 1st Amendment was the basis for that decision, don't you? So, you want a constitutional amendment to repeal or at least restrict the 1st Amendment? Be careful what you wish for ...

No, I want an amendment that restricts citizenship to individual people. This would nullify Citizens United without touching the !st.

The restrictions in the Bill of Rights are all on government reach & power ... where they should be.

Good luck with your amendment restricting citizenship. (guffaw)

[homersapien 11,812]

I'm not sure if there is a universal standard or definition to describe a political indy. I'll take a stab and say it's someone who can criticize and call out people or politicians who align most closely to their political beliefs. Or can agree with someone who doesn't align closely with our own political beliefs.

This I completely agree with and is likely the closest to what I would hope to see. A squealing wheel mostly makes noise and no difference. How is my dismissing the SAME useless vitriol as any other on the political landscape(<<<damn near a quote big man, lol) rhetoric signaling to you I'm ok with partisanship, dkw? lol. You are still making ZERO sense. Save your sermon for someone else, I'm not reading it an do not really find myself interested in it.

Apparently, he thinks it will make a difference if we "register independent". :-\/> I didn't even know you could do that.

But I'll volunteer a small step that would go a long way to putting us right: Support a constitutional amendment to nullify the "Citizens United" decision. I wonder how many from each party would support that?

Mitch McConnell obviously doesn't.

http://takingnote.bl...ns-united/?_r=0

Support a constitutional amendment to repeal the Citizens United decision? You do realize the 1st Amendment was the basis for that decision, don't you? So, you want a constitutional amendment to repeal or at least restrict the 1st Amendment? Be careful what you wish for ...

No, I want an amendment that restricts citizenship to individual people. This would nullify Citizens United without touching the !st.

The restrictions in the Bill of Rights are all on government reach & power ... where they should be.

Good luck with your amendment restricting citizenship. (guffaw)

First, your response is nonsensical to me. Can you re-phrase it?

And can I take it you support the idea that corporations have the same rights as citizens?

[autigeremt 6,970]

I'm not sure if there is a universal standard or definition to describe a political indy. I'll take a stab and say it's someone who can criticize and call out people or politicians who align most closely to their political beliefs. Or can agree with someone who doesn't align closely with our own political beliefs.

This I completely agree with and is likely the closest to what I would hope to see. A squealing wheel mostly makes noise and no difference. How is my dismissing the SAME useless vitriol as any other on the political landscape(<<<damn near a quote big man, lol) rhetoric signaling to you I'm ok with partisanship, dkw? lol. You are still making ZERO sense. Save your sermon for someone else, I'm not reading it an do not really find myself interested in it.

Apparently, he thinks it will make a difference if we "register independent". :-\/> I didn't even know you could do that.

But I'll volunteer a small step that would go a long way to putting us right: Support a constitutional amendment to nullify the "Citizens United" decision. I wonder how many from each party would support that?

Mitch McConnell obviously doesn't.

http://takingnote.bl...ns-united/?_r=0

Support a constitutional amendment to repeal the Citizens United decision? You do realize the 1st Amendment was the basis for that decision, don't you? So, you want a constitutional amendment to repeal or at least restrict the 1st Amendment? Be careful what you wish for ...

No, I want an amendment that restricts citizenship to individual people. This would nullify Citizens United without touching the !st.

The restrictions in the Bill of Rights are all on government reach & power ... where they should be.

Good luck with your amendment restricting citizenship. (guffaw)

First, your response is nonsensical to me. Can you re-phrase it?

And can I take it you support the idea that corporations have the same rights as citizens?

Corporations are made up of citizens, but I actually agree with your view on this for the most part.

[homersapien 11,812]

I'm not sure if there is a universal standard or definition to describe a political indy. I'll take a stab and say it's someone who can criticize and call out people or politicians who align most closely to their political beliefs. Or can agree with someone who doesn't align closely with our own political beliefs.

This I completely agree with and is likely the closest to what I would hope to see. A squealing wheel mostly makes noise and no difference. How is my dismissing the SAME useless vitriol as any other on the political landscape(<<<damn near a quote big man, lol) rhetoric signaling to you I'm ok with partisanship, dkw? lol. You are still making ZERO sense. Save your sermon for someone else, I'm not reading it an do not really find myself interested in it.

Apparently, he thinks it will make a difference if we "register independent". :-\/> I didn't even know you could do that.

But I'll volunteer a small step that would go a long way to putting us right: Support a constitutional amendment to nullify the "Citizens United" decision. I wonder how many from each party would support that?

Mitch McConnell obviously doesn't.

http://takingnote.bl...ns-united/?_r=0

Support a constitutional amendment to repeal the Citizens United decision? You do realize the 1st Amendment was the basis for that decision, don't you? So, you want a constitutional amendment to repeal or at least restrict the 1st Amendment? Be careful what you wish for ...

No, I want an amendment that restricts citizenship to individual people. This would nullify Citizens United without touching the !st.

The restrictions in the Bill of Rights are all on government reach & power ... where they should be.

Good luck with your amendment restricting citizenship. (guffaw)

First, your response is nonsensical to me. Can you re-phrase it?

And can I take it you support the idea that corporations have the same rights as citizens?

Corporations are made up of citizens, but I actually agree with your view on this for the most part.

True, but a corporation has a separate legal identity distinct from it's owners, by definition.

[autigeremt 6,970]

I'm not sure if there is a universal standard or definition to describe a political indy. I'll take a stab and say it's someone who can criticize and call out people or politicians who align most closely to their political beliefs. Or can agree with someone who doesn't align closely with our own political beliefs.

This I completely agree with and is likely the closest to what I would hope to see. A squealing wheel mostly makes noise and no difference. How is my dismissing the SAME useless vitriol as any other on the political landscape(<<<damn near a quote big man, lol) rhetoric signaling to you I'm ok with partisanship, dkw? lol. You are still making ZERO sense. Save your sermon for someone else, I'm not reading it an do not really find myself interested in it.

Apparently, he thinks it will make a difference if we "register independent". :-\/> I didn't even know you could do that.

But I'll volunteer a small step that would go a long way to putting us right: Support a constitutional amendment to nullify the "Citizens United" decision. I wonder how many from each party would support that?

Mitch McConnell obviously doesn't.

http://takingnote.bl...ns-united/?_r=0

Support a constitutional amendment to repeal the Citizens United decision? You do realize the 1st Amendment was the basis for that decision, don't you? So, you want a constitutional amendment to repeal or at least restrict the 1st Amendment? Be careful what you wish for ...

No, I want an amendment that restricts citizenship to individual people. This would nullify Citizens United without touching the !st.

The restrictions in the Bill of Rights are all on government reach & power ... where they should be.

Good luck with your amendment restricting citizenship. (guffaw)

First, your response is nonsensical to me. Can you re-phrase it?

And can I take it you support the idea that corporations have the same rights as citizens?

Corporations are made up of citizens, but I actually agree with your view on this for the most part.

True, but a corporation has a separate legal identity distinct from it's owners, by definition.

What about the shareholders?

[homersapien 11,812]

I'm not sure if there is a universal standard or definition to describe a political indy. I'll take a stab and say it's someone who can criticize and call out people or politicians who align most closely to their political beliefs. Or can agree with someone who doesn't align closely with our own political beliefs.

This I completely agree with and is likely the closest to what I would hope to see. A squealing wheel mostly makes noise and no difference. How is my dismissing the SAME useless vitriol as any other on the political landscape(<<<damn near a quote big man, lol) rhetoric signaling to you I'm ok with partisanship, dkw? lol. You are still making ZERO sense. Save your sermon for someone else, I'm not reading it an do not really find myself interested in it.

Apparently, he thinks it will make a difference if we "register independent". :-\/> I didn't even know you could do that.

But I'll volunteer a small step that would go a long way to putting us right: Support a constitutional amendment to nullify the "Citizens United" decision. I wonder how many from each party would support that?

Mitch McConnell obviously doesn't.

http://takingnote.bl...ns-united/?_r=0

Support a constitutional amendment to repeal the Citizens United decision? You do realize the 1st Amendment was the basis for that decision, don't you? So, you want a constitutional amendment to repeal or at least restrict the 1st Amendment? Be careful what you wish for ...

No, I want an amendment that restricts citizenship to individual people. This would nullify Citizens United without touching the !st.

The restrictions in the Bill of Rights are all on government reach & power ... where they should be.

Good luck with your amendment restricting citizenship. (guffaw)

First, your response is nonsensical to me. Can you re-phrase it?

And can I take it you support the idea that corporations have the same rights as citizens?

Corporations are made up of citizens, but I actually agree with your view on this for the most part.

True, but a corporation has a separate legal identity distinct from it's owners, by definition.

What about the shareholders?

What about them? Citizens (or non citizens for that matter) may own the corporation. But that doesn't make the corporation a citizen.

[AUMed 0]

I liked #8 because of how outrageously inaccurate it was.

[homersapien 11,812]

I liked #8 because of how outrageously inaccurate it was.

Accuracy?

We don't need no stickin' accuracy! This is a political board. All we need is emotion.