"I am an independent"

[Salty]

So many people state that they are a registered independent.

I often wonder why. Why are people so afraid to be affiliated with an organisation.

Sure, you may not agree with every last item on the party platform. But do you even know what the
platform of a political party is?

Many will say that they will vote for the person best qualified. But I wonder if that individual still votes
most of the time of the same political party.

IMHO - a person needs to be active in their political party! Start at the local level. Be on a city or town committee. Help to nominate those who are worthy to be in the public trust.

Currently, I am on our county committee and have recently be elected to be on the State committee. In those positions, I can make my voice know.

And for those of you that do not want to be a "D" or an "R" there are several "minor" political parties.
Some will say that a minor party can actually loose the election for one of the major parties. Well, when a minor party gets strong enough- the major party will start to listen to you.

Here in NY State, minor parties do carry a lot of weight due to our fusion laws.

Last, but not least - Run for public office. One of my biggest pet peeves is when (especially) an incumbent runs for re-election with no opposition from the other side. The reason being - is that why waste money when we know the other guy will win.

click here for link of political parties:


Open for discussion!


PS - FWIW NY state has NO registered independents.

 

[HankD]

I used to say that I am/was a small "i" independent. An independent but not registered as such.
Here in WA State we are viewed as "no preference" or "no affiliation".

When I entered the world of politics in the 60's I was a JFK Democrat.
Even at that Barry Goldwater (R) was my man in his day.

Roe v. Wade changed everything, I totally renounced my affiliation with the Democratic Party.

To me the Republican Party was/is the lesser of two evils.
Roe v. Wade happened under a Republican administration with several following Republican administrations unable to revoke it.

Today I identify with the Libertarian Party.
I am a Pro-Life Libertarian by affiliation.

 

[Baptist Believer]

For those who are pastors, there is a great danger of taking on a prominent role in a political party -- even if you make it known that you don't agree with every position, or everything that is said and done. For outsiders to the faith, it confuses the gospel message (with all of its moral and social implications) to a particular political party.

For instance, if a pastor has a prominent role in the Democratic Party, it would be quite easy for an outsider to believe that the full range of Democratic positions are compatible with the gospel -- which we know is not true. The same goes for the Republican Party.

If you are a pastor, I believe that your primary message is to represent God's Kingdom, not one of the minor kingdoms of the world. It is very difficult to act as an effective prophet of the Kingdom of God to the culture if you are heavily invested in the promotion of the influence of a competing temporal kingdom.

 

[HankD]

For those who are pastors, there is a great danger of taking on a prominent role in a political party -- even if you make it known that you don't agree with every position, or everything that is said and done. For outsiders to the faith, it confuses the gospel message (with all of its moral and social implications) to a particular political party.

For instance, if a pastor has a prominent role in the Democratic Party, it would be quite easy for an outsider to believe that the full range of Democratic positions are compatible with the gospel -- which we know is not true. The same goes for the Republican Party.

If you are a pastor, I believe that your primary message is to represent God's Kingdom, not one of the minor kingdoms of the world. It is very difficult to act as an effective prophet of the Kingdom of God to the culture if you are heavily invested in the promotion of the influence of a competing temporal kingdom.

In one respect yes IMO - If one (pastor or not) identifies with the Democrat Party then one identifies with abortion.

 

[TCassidy]

I often wonder why. Why are people so afraid to be affiliated with an organisation.

So, not being a "Party Member" is caused by fear and not principles?

Some will say that a minor party can actually loose the election for one of the major parties.

In 1992 Ross Perot took over 18% of the vote, most of it from George Bush, and single handedly put Bill Clinton into the White House with only 44% of the vote. (Most Perot voters were even more conservative than Bush so most of Perot's votes would have gone to Bush.)

Roe v. Wade changed everything, I totally renounced my affiliation with the Democratic Party.

But RvW was ruled on by a Republican controlled Court.

Today I identify with the Libertarian Party.
I am a Pro-Life Libertarian by affiliation.

Me too. Except for the abortion stand.

If one (pastor or not) identifies with the Democrat Party then one identifies with abortion.

But the same could be said of Libertarians.

Libertarian Platform:

1.5 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

In other words, a woman's right to choose to kill her child.

 

[Reynolds]

For those who are pastors, there is a great danger of taking on a prominent role in a political party -- even if you make it known that you don't agree with every position, or everything that is said and done. For outsiders to the faith, it confuses the gospel message (with all of its moral and social implications) to a particular political party.

For instance, if a pastor has a prominent role in the Democratic Party, it would be quite easy for an outsider to believe that the full range of Democratic positions are compatible with the gospel -- which we know is not true. The same goes for the Republican Party.

If you are a pastor, I believe that your primary message is to represent God's Kingdom, not one of the minor kingdoms of the world. It is very difficult to act as an effective prophet of the Kingdom of God to the culture if you are heavily invested in the promotion of the influence of a competing temporal kingdom.

If a pastor is too spineless to endorse pro-life candidates, I have no use for him.

 

[Salty]

If a pastor is too spineless to endorse pro-life candidates, I have no use for him.

Even if that candidate is wrong on every other issue?

 

[Salty]

In 1992 Ross Perot took over 18% of the vote, most of it from George Bush, and single handedly put Bill Clinton into the White House with only 44% of the vote. (Most Perot voters were even more conservative than Bush so most of Perot's votes would have gone to Bush.)

Thus a good reason for Instant runoff voting.

In other words, a woman's right to choose to kill her child.

Exactly!

 

[Reynolds]

Even if that candidate is wrong on every other issue?

I have never seen an instance of the pro murderer being the better candidate. Let's remove the window dressing and expose the true issue here. A pro abortion politician has more blood on his hands than Ted Bundy.

 

[TCassidy]

Thus a good reason for Instant runoff voting.

I agree. I think a candidate should get 50% plus 1 vote to be put in office. If there are 5 candidates (like in California where there are 6 Democrats and 4 Republicans running for the Senate seat presently held by Dianne Feinstein. The ballot will have Democrat Dianne Feinstein running against fellow Democrat Kevin de León) if one does not get 50% plus 1 vote the top 4 runners go back to a runoff election. If nobody gets 50% plus 1 vote the top 3 do it again. And that keeps up, eliminating the bottom achiever until one candidate gets 50% plus 1 vote.

It may be cumbersome and expensive, but it will eliminate "spoiler" candidates like Perot in 1992/1996 and Ralph Nader in Florida in 2000 which took enough votes from Al Gore that Bush won the state and thus won the electoral college vote even though he received fewer "popular votes" (a concept which does not exist in US Presidential elections, but is the invention of the news media).

 

[Reynolds]

I agree. I think a candidate should get 50% plus 1 vote to be put in office. If there are 5 candidates (like in California where there are 6 Democrats and 4 Republicans running for the Senate seat presently held by Dianne Feinstein. The ballot will have Democrat Dianne Feinstein running against fellow Democrat Kevin de León) if one does not get 50% plus 1 vote the top 4 runners go back to a runoff election. If nobody gets 50% plus 1 vote the top 3 do it again. And that keeps up, eliminating the bottom achiever until one candidate gets 50% plus 1 vote.

It may be cumbersome and expensive, but it will eliminate "spoiler" candidates like Perot in 1992/1996 and Ralph Nader in Florida in 2000 which took enough votes from Al Gore that Bush won the state and thus won the electoral college vote even though he received fewer "popular votes" (a concept which does not exist in US Presidential elections, but is the invention of the news media).

If we want to truly follow the intent of the founders, we would elect President by the classical electoral college process.

 

[Salty]

It may be cumbersome and expensive, but it will eliminate "spoiler" candidates li.

Actually it is not cumbersome - as people only vote once - but they give 2nd, 3rd, 4th choices.

and yes, it will eliminate spoiler candidates

 

[HankD]

So, not being a "Party Member" is caused by fear and not principles?

In 1992 Ross Perot took over 18% of the vote, most of it from George Bush, and single handedly put Bill Clinton into the White House with only 44% of the vote. (Most Perot voters were even more conservative than Bush so most of Perot's votes would have gone to Bush.)

But RvW was ruled on by a Republican controlled Court.

Me too. Except for the abortion stand.

But the same could be said of Libertarians.

Libertarian Platform:

1.5 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

In other words, a woman's right to choose to kill her child.

I always add I am pro-life with a Libertarian affiliation. I have not registered as a Libertarian and as far as I know I am still "unaffiliated in WA State.
However they may consider me as a Republican because I voted for Trump. Not sure if they do that or not.

So technically I suppose I am still a pro-life small "i" independent.
Trump is still my man and in reality he is a RINO and is of the Party of Trump.

Sometimes (maybe not on the BB I don't remember) I add I believe in - States Rights - however the Progressive propaganda Pavlovian reaction is to slander us as "White Supremacists".

 

[TCassidy]

If we want to truly follow the intent of the founders, we would elect President by the classical electoral college process.

Uh, that's how we elect Presidents. Constitutionally the electoral college is not held to vote any certain way regardless of how the people of the State may have voted. Some states require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote or by party affiliation.

 

[Reynolds]

Uh, that's how we elect Presidents. Constitutionally the electoral college is not held to vote any certain way regardless of how the people of the State may have voted. Some states require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote or by party affiliation.

Most states delegates are bound. The orig. Process convened a convention and the delegates voted and made the decision at the convention.

 

[kyredneck]

Today I identify with the Libertarian Party.

I hold to republicanism as laid out in the constitution of the United States, i.e., I am a Republican, but I do like most of the ideals of Libertarianism also.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

If we want to truly follow the intent of the founders, we would elect President by the classical electoral college process.

Most states delegates are bound. The orig. Process convened a convention and the delegates voted and made the decision at the convention.

I think I like some of the adjustments they've made. Originally, the runner-up became VP. Can you imagine having Trump as president and Hillary as the vice, especially with the "popular vote" issue?

 

[Wingman68]

I used to say that I am/was a small "i" independent. An independent but not registered as such.
Here in WA State we are viewed as "no preference" or "no affiliation".

When I entered the world of politics in the 60's I was a JFK Democrat.
Even at that Barry Goldwater (R) was my man in his day.

Roe v. Wade changed everything, I totally renounced my affiliation with the Democratic Party.

To me the Republican Party was/is the lesser of two evils.
Roe v. Wade happened under a Republican administration with several following Republican administrations unable to revoke it.

Today I identify with the Libertarian Party.
I am a Pro-Life Libertarian by affiliation.

Unfortunately they are poorly represented, kind of like the SBC right now:
The Libertarian Party Officially Opposes the Concept of Innocent Until Proven Guilty

 

[HankD]

But RvW was ruled on by a Republican controlled Court.

Yes, one of my points - the Republican Party shares the guilt for Roe v. Wade.

I should have said that the results of Roe v. Wade changed everything. Both parties had shocked me with their complacency.

In the early 1970's I lived in Massachusetts - though the nest of the Kennedy's (Catholic) and a former Republican governor (Volpe) it was overall exceedingly liberal and supportive of abortion.

 

[FollowTheWay]

In one respect yes IMO - If one (pastor or not) identifies with the Democrat Party then one identifies with abortion.

And being a Republican means taking from the poor to give to the rich. Not a good position for a pastor to take. Also abortions have gone down under Democratic administrations more than under Republicans. The number of abortions per women of child-bearing age is now LESS than it was before the Republican Supreme Court passed Roe vs. Wade.