Author Topic: Why can't a true independent candidate for office win an important position?  (Read 4599 times)

ieffinhatecardio

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5202
  • More proof God is a man.
My opinion is that the country works best with a combination of Conservative and Liberals policies. The problem is that nearly all politicians from each party stick too closely to the party line, not all politicians but certainly the overwhelming majority.

The question remains, why can't a true independent party take hold and thrive? And why can't a true independent candidate be elected to an important position?

a_joker10

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1922
I think Lieberman was elected to the Senate. This year.
He didn't have backing from the Democrats, yet he won.

Also Jesse the Body was independent when he won in Minnesota.
Z

ieffinhatecardio

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5202
  • More proof God is a man.
I think Lieberman was elected to the Senate. This year.
He didn't have backing from the Democrats, yet he won.

Also Jesse the Body was independent when he won in Minnesota.


I'm not counting Jesse the Body, I still look at his tenure as a joke.

Isn't Lieberman a Liberal? Just because he didn't have the backing of the Democrats doesn't make him a true Independent. I might be wrong but I always thought of him as a Liberal and I think the vast majority of the voting public thinks of him as a Liberal too.

a_joker10

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1922
Lieberman is a liberal.
But he is also an independent.
An independent is only accountable to those voted him in and in Lieberman's case it was mainly the middle that voted him in, including many Republicans.
Z

ieffinhatecardio

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5202
  • More proof God is a man.
Lieberman is a liberal.
But he is also an independent.

An independent is only accountable to those voted him in and in Lieberman's case it was mainly the middle that voted him in, including many Republicans.

How can he be both? When I say a true Independent I don't mean politicians that run as an independent because their chosen party hasn't endorsed them.

I mean a true independent without any real affiliation to either the Democrats or the Republicans.

And why hasn't a strong Independent Party been formed? I would think there is a large number of people that believe the country runs best with a combination of both parties. Eh, maybe I'm wrong.

ieffinhatecardio

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5202
  • More proof God is a man.
there will always be exceptions - when someone who is a major celebrity wins in a college state (ventura) or a longtime member of party is bumped over an issue but still retains his loyal state voting base (lieberman).  And you even have the occasional guylike Perot who gets 20% and changes the outcome, wins no states, and gets most of his funding from the Dems (he was a tool to defeat Bush1). 

But it'd take a lot for anything to happen on a widespread level.  The larger group that runs our nation likes the 2-party system, because the 300 million peons are arguing about things like gay marriage and stem cell research while they're securinging millions of acres of US soil as loan collateral for the huge war debt we're gaining.  yes, we're going to lose 2 or 3 states' worth eventually, for funding this war effort.  didn't think this thru, did ya? lol...

Where do you get this stuff? We're not going to lose 2 or 3 states worth of land. What are your sources?

ieffinhatecardio

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5202
  • More proof God is a man.
also - locally, where you have maybe 3000 people turn out for an election, a libertarian or green party guy can win.  hustle and legwork can get you the votes.

nationally, it's played with tv ads, which require tv money, which only the two big parties (funded by rich individuals attempting to curry favor with the winning party) can provide.  System possess barriers to entry way to large to break, barring the people waking up.

This is why I asked the question "why hasn't a strong and true Independent party been formed?". The only barrier is money and influence, a few deep pocketed and influential Independent party backers that are TRUE Independents is enough to start the ball rolling and effect change.

People with power, influence and money grow up within a system, that system is run either by Conservative beliefs or Liberal beliefs. They are doomed to follow one of two paths. I just don't understand why they don't follow a path that encompasses both ideologies.

Your ultimate point was correct. The system is the barrier.

a_joker10

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1922
also - locally, where you have maybe 3000 people turn out for an election, a libertarian or green party guy can win.  hustle and legwork can get you the votes.

nationally, it's played with tv ads, which require tv money, which only the two big parties (funded by rich individuals attempting to curry favor with the winning party) can provide.  System possess barriers to entry way to large to break, barring the people waking up.
This is how Lieberman won and so did Jesse.

The problem with Independents is that they often use ideas that are far from the main stream to wedge their views in.

Also independents don't understand lobbying or how the game of politics are played. Both Parties find it easy to smear independents or discredit their worth.
In the end most people vote out of fear not for the betterment of society.
Z

a_joker10

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1922
The loans (8 trillion?) we take out, our nat'l deficit, uses federal property as collateral.  has since 1913 when the fed reserve made the US a corporation.  These large worldwide banks who have lent the trillions haven't collected yet, because to do so would disrupt the productivity of our nation.  But should there ever be a financial collapse in the US, where they're no longer earning, these banks (Swiss, Israeli, American, and yes, even Chinese) have the rights to begin seizing federal property as their own.  Imagine a Chinese city of mnfg. firms being built in Yellowstone National park.  Insourcing at its finest!

Research it.


Your are right about foreign ownership of some of the Debt, but most of the US debt is actually American owned and almost every country on Earth has some form of Debt. But you are right to be concerned. There are no plans to reduce the debt and instead people are focusing on tax reduction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._public_debt
Consequences of foreign ownership of U.S. debt

U.S. Treasury statistics indicate that, at the end of 2004, foreigners held 44% of federal debt held by the public. [12] About 64% of that 44% was held by the central banks of other countries. A large portion was held by the central banks of Japan and China, although, most was held by members of the EU. This exposes the United States to potential financial or political risk that either banks will stop buying Treasury securities or start selling them heavily. In fact, the debt held by Japan reached a maximum in August of 2004 and has fallen nearly 3% since then. [13]

On 3 August 2006, Italy's central bank announced that it would sell off a large portion of its dollar holdings (including US Treasury bonds) and instead shift to British Pound Sterling. The reason Italy gave for doing out of fear of an "expected slide in the dollar." Russia, Sweden, and the United Arab Emirates had announced similar shifts out of the dollar into other currencies and gold earlier and cited the United States's "twin deficits" (i.e. the US trade deficit as well as its budget deficit) as the reason for the expected fall in the dollar's value.[14]
Z

ieffinhatecardio

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5202
  • More proof God is a man.
the 2-3 states meant collectively.  They don't own montana lol... but if you add up the number of federal properties owned by the state which could be collected thru a federal financial inability to repay, it's going to be several states worth.

That's why the CTers are so freaked about this new world order thing.  it's all legal.  Our system is set up so that the group of int'l banks can come in and pull rank when they wish.

I understood what you meant by 2-3 states worth. Isn't most Federal debt in the form of Bonds and isn't that held by American Citizens?

I've been researching the use of land as collateral by the Federal Government but perhaps my Google skills aren't quite up to it because I can't find any references to it. Do you have any links?

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
My opinion is that the country works best with a combination of Conservative and Liberals policies. The problem is that nearly all politicians from each party stick too closely to the party line, not all politicians but certainly the overwhelming majority.

The question remains, why can't a true independent party take hold and thrive? And why can't a true independent candidate be elected to an important position?

I believe in the combination of conservative and liberal policies being better too... I really think we're fucked if either side attained all the power and I think we saw what one party completely removed from any power at all giving total power to one side does.  And you hit the problem right on the head... politicians don't represent the people, they represent the party.  They don't go to Washington for the people as much as they go and become a rubber stamp man for what the party wants.  I think a third party can't get there because the other parties do such a great job of forcing you to vote for one of their guys because you don't like the other guy so much.  That and many other political parties out there are to radical to become mainstream enough to pick up enough members.

Mr. Intenseone

  • Guest
I've always said that if Lieberman ran for President, there's a good chance I'd vote for him, I think the Dems made big mistake when they turned against him for not supporting their agenda!

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
I've always said that if Lieberman ran for President, there's a good chance I'd vote for him, I think the Dems made big mistake when they turned against him for not supporting their agenda!
yea, he just became the most powerful dem in some ways.  He's got a lot of power now... The Dems are going to have to kiss his ass like crazy or they might regret it.  Sucks....