I'm a liberal Independent, open to voting for any party in 2016.

[JumpinJack]

I'm not affiliated with either of the major parties. I'm left of center, independent. I'm open to voting for any moderate candidate for President in 2016.

So...who's gonna run that I can vote for?

You think the Republicans will choose a moderate candidate, such that I could vote for him/her? (I would consider voting for Christie and a few other Republicans, even though I disagree with some of their positions. I would NEVER vote for a tea partier....extremists are verboten!)

I consider Hillary Clinton a moderate, so I guess she's a possibility on the Democratic Party side. It's a plus that she's a woman. It's about time! I don't think Biden is Presdential material. I don't know that they have anyone else thinking of running.

Independent candidates are always iffy. I voted for Ross Perot once, but he was different and actually had a chance.

I hope I have a choice between two or more moderates of different parties. Who do you think are possible candidates? Any chance the Republicans are going to nominate a woman or minority (but a moderate)? I'm tired of seeing rich white older men running the country. They have a particular point of view that seems to me is narrow, since they've not experienced many things in life that most people have (like having trouble paying bills, grocery shopping, standing in line at the DMV, dropping kids off at school on the way to work, etc.).

 

[Cyrylek]

You think the Republicans will choose a moderate candidate, such that I could vote for him/her? (I would consider voting for Christie [...]. I would NEVER vote for a tea partier....extremists are verboten!).

Chris Christie was elected, and being re-elected, with enthusiastic support of tea parties of New Jersey - and he is generally well liked by the actual tea party activists nationwide.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/u...terly-speaker-and-tea-party-pleaser.html?_r=0

I sense a degree of confusion regarding political labels.

 

[azgreg]

Chris Christie was elected, and being re-elected, with enthusiastic support of tea parties of New Jersey - and he is generally well liked by the actual tea party activists nationwide.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/u...terly-speaker-and-tea-party-pleaser.html?_r=0

I sense a degree of confusion regarding political labels.

I agree. I don't think it's ever been muddier. that being said, I don't recall a bigger rift between the two major party bases in my lifetime.

 

[lizzie]

I consider Hillary Clinton a moderate, so I guess she's a possibility on the Democratic Party side. It's a plus that she's a woman. It's about time! I don't think Biden is Presdential material. I don't know that they have anyone else thinking of running.

Independent candidates are always iffy. I voted for Ross Perot once, but he was different and actually had a chance.

I hope I have a choice between two or more moderates of different parties. Who do you think are possible candidates? Any chance the Republicans are going to nominate a woman or minority (but a moderate)? I'm tired of seeing rich white older men running the country. They have a particular point of view that seems to me is narrow, since they've not experienced many things in life that most people have (like having trouble paying bills, grocery shopping, standing in line at the DMV, dropping kids off at school on the way to work, etc.).

I pretty much expect that Clinton will get the nomination, or at least it looks that way to me at this point in time. That being the case, I would think you'd be pretty likely to vote for her, since she leans left, and (as you said) is a woman, which you consider to be "about time" for in the way of a presidential candidate. I doubt the Republicans will nominate anyone as left as Clinton is, so assuming she gets the nomination, you are pretty much assured that you have a candidate you can vote for.

 

[Cyrylek]

I agree. I don't think it's ever been muddier. that being said, I don't recall a bigger rift between the two major party bases in my lifetime.

Well, yes, the pelossified Democrats are getting rid of the last Blue Dogs and moderates (which is why in NJ I would actually vote for Booker, despite being much closer ideologically to Christie and Lonegan), and the GOP is being pulled by populist (and not so populist) libertarians in one direction and by opportunistic conservatives in another - but the resulting vector is still "away from where the Dems are going"

 

[Cyrylek]

Any chance the Republicans are going to nominate a woman or minority (but a moderate)? .

Well, Susana Martinez, Governor of New Mexico, is all three.

Martinez popular across party lines | KOB.com

I expect Christie to be the nominee, but she could be the running mate.

 

[Mycroft]

I'm not affiliated with either of the major parties. I'm left of center, independent. I'm open to voting for any moderate candidate for President in 2016.

So...who's gonna run that I can vote for?

You think the Republicans will choose a moderate candidate, such that I could vote for him/her? (I would consider voting for Christie and a few other Republicans, even though I disagree with some of their positions. I would NEVER vote for a tea partier....extremists are verboten!)

I consider Hillary Clinton a moderate, so I guess she's a possibility on the Democratic Party side. It's a plus that she's a woman. It's about time! I don't think Biden is Presdential material. I don't know that they have anyone else thinking of running.

Independent candidates are always iffy. I voted for Ross Perot once, but he was different and actually had a chance.

I hope I have a choice between two or more moderates of different parties. Who do you think are possible candidates? Any chance the Republicans are going to nominate a woman or minority (but a moderate)? I'm tired of seeing rich white older men running the country. They have a particular point of view that seems to me is narrow, since they've not experienced many things in life that most people have (like having trouble paying bills, grocery shopping, standing in line at the DMV, dropping kids off at school on the way to work, etc.).

If you are liberal...doesn't matter if you are independent or not...you are going to vote for whomever the Democrats toss out there. Don't try to fool anyone...especially yourself.

In any case, you are asking your question a year and a half too soon. Wait till at least early to middle 2015.

 

[JoeTrumps]

Yes, Obama was elected because it was "about time", why not elect Hillary because it's about time. Lets make make a list of every group with a history of social grievances and elect them President. that'll get us out of this hole.

 

[specklebang]

If you are liberal...doesn't matter if you are independent or not...you are going to vote for whomever the Democrats toss out there. Don't try to fool anyone...especially yourself.

In any case, you are asking your question a year and a half too soon. Wait till at least early to middle 2015.

Being a "social liberal" is not even close to being a "liberal". We really need a new term for the millions of true independents who have feelings that equality is important.

I think that Christie is close to that description, so there are still "choices". I like Jon Huntsman and Gary Johnson as well. I'm also fond of Condi Rice but that might be my "other head" thinking for me. Poor little fellow doesn't get out much.

I'd like to know more about Hillary's positions sans Obama because I certainly want somebody with better management skills than Obama has displayed.

 

[Helix]

I am so not ready for the 2016 election. Superpacs absolutely ruined 2012. That's my super bowl, and the onslaught of stupid hack ads basically broke television.

 

[StringBean]

Hillary is not moderate. Don't let her fool you as Obama did in 2008.

Jon Huntsman is the best candidate. Was in 2012, will be so again in 2016.

But the Perrys and Bachmanns will ne'er give him the spotlight he deserves.

2016 is going to be Cruz vs. Christie, and Cruz will probably win out via the arcane primary process by crowing to the "hardcore" conservatives.

And we'll have 4 more years of Progressive regressivism. Yippee.

 

[The Man]

I'm tired of seeing rich white older men running the country. They have a particular point of view that seems to me is narrow, since they've not experienced many things in life that most people have (like having trouble paying bills, grocery shopping, standing in line at the DMV, dropping kids off at school on the way to work, etc.).

I'm not sure what race or sex has to do with anything? Barack Obama has never had to deal with average people everyday problems and issues, and neither has Hilary Clinton. And they're both wealthy, just like them old white guys.

 

[Mycroft]

Being a "social liberal" is not even close to being a "liberal". We really need a new term for the millions of true independents who have feelings that equality is important.

I think that Christie is close to that description, so there are still "choices". I like Jon Huntsman and Gary Johnson as well. I'm also fond of Condi Rice but that might be my "other head" thinking for me. Poor little fellow doesn't get out much.

I'd like to know more about Hillary's positions sans Obama because I certainly want somebody with better management skills than Obama has displayed.

I don't think "social" should have any place in the federal government. The fed should confine itself to the Constitution and leave the social stuff to the states where it belongs.

But a hallmark of liberals is that social is a big deal to them.

 

[AGENT J]

I don't think "social" should have any place in the federal government. The fed should confine itself to the Constitution and leave the social stuff to the states where it belongs.

But a hallmark of liberals is that social is a big deal to them.

hmmm i have to agree with SB 100% and totally disagree with you. I myself am socially liberal but conservative on many things.

why?

because many social things are rights issues and the state has no business deciding them BUT it simply could be a matter of you don't think certain things are social issues

so what do you consider current and past social issues?
Id say past
minority rights?
womans rights?
interracial marriage?
Abortion?
Current:
gay rights?

DO you not think these are social issues?

 

[Mycroft]

hmmm i have to agree with SB 100% and totally disagree with you. I myself am socially liberal but conservative on many things.

why?

because many social things are rights issues and the state has no business deciding them BUT it simply could be a matter of you don't think certain things are social issues

so what do you consider current and past social issues?
Id say past
minority rights?
womans rights?
interracial marriage?
Abortion?
Current:
gay rights?

DO you not think these are social issues?

The Constitution defines the fed's role concerning rights. Anything not listed in the Constitution is the realm of the states. You are free to include any other rights into the Constitution through the amendment process.

 

[AGENT J]

The Constitution defines the fed's role concerning rights. Anything not listed in the Constitution is the realm of the states. You are free to include any other rights into the Constitution through the amendment process.

weird that doesn't answer my question at all.
Ill try again

so what do you consider current and past social issues?
Id say past
minority rights?
womans rights?
interracial marriage?
Abortion?
Current:
gay rights?

DO you not think these are social issues?

 

[Goshin]

I'm not affiliated with either of the major parties. I'm left of center, independent. I'm open to voting for any moderate candidate for President in 2016.

So...who's gonna run that I can vote for?

You think the Republicans will choose a moderate candidate, such that I could vote for him/her? (I would consider voting for Christie and a few other Republicans, even though I disagree with some of their positions. I would NEVER vote for a tea partier....extremists are verboten!)

I consider Hillary Clinton a moderate, so I guess she's a possibility on the Democratic Party side. It's a plus that she's a woman. It's about time! I don't think Biden is Presdential material. I don't know that they have anyone else thinking of running.

Independent candidates are always iffy. I voted for Ross Perot once, but he was different and actually had a chance.

I hope I have a choice between two or more moderates of different parties. Who do you think are possible candidates? Any chance the Republicans are going to nominate a woman or minority (but a moderate)? I'm tired of seeing rich white older men running the country. They have a particular point of view that seems to me is narrow, since they've not experienced many things in life that most people have (like having trouble paying bills, grocery shopping, standing in line at the DMV, dropping kids off at school on the way to work, etc.).

I'm an Independent Centrist who leans libertarian on issues of personal freedom, and I seriously doubt that I will be voting for either of the two major parties in the coming election.

It only encourages them.


3rd party a "wasted vote"? Yeah probably... but so is voting for Same Old **** and expecting anything different.

 

[Mycroft]

weird that doesn't answer my question at all.
Ill try again

so what do you consider current and past social issues?
Id say past
minority rights?
womans rights?
interracial marriage?
Abortion?
Current:
gay rights?

DO you not think these are social issues?

Sure they are. So what? Are they included as rights in the Constitution? If not, then add them and the federal government can deal with them.

 

[AGENT J]

I'm an Independent Centrist who leans libertarian on issues of personal freedom, and I seriously doubt that I will be voting for either of the two major parties in the coming election.

It only encourages them.


3rd party a "wasted vote"? Yeah probably... but so is voting for Same Old **** and expecting anything different.

:lol:

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Sure they are.
2.)So what? Are they included as rights in the Constitution? If not, then add them and the federal government can deal with them.

1.) thanks
2.) so what is the state doesn't get to violate individual rights. Once court cases are made thats that

so like i said the state had no business in many social issues at all.
Thanks for answering.

 

[clownboy]

1.) thanks
2.) so what is the state doesn't get to violate individual rights. Once court cases are made thats that

so like i said the state had no business in many social issues at all.
Thanks for answering.

But of course, you're wrong. It depends on what you believe are "rights". The Constitution tells us what our actual rights are and what the federal and state governments may regulate. Everything else falls to the states and the people to decide. You're okay with adding to federal and individual rights by court decision alone. Some of the rest of us believe that can only be done through constitutional amendment.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)But of course, you're wrong.
2.)It depends on what you believe are "rights". The Constitution tells us what our actual rights are and what the federal and state governments may regulate.
3.)Everything else falls to the states and the people to decide.
4.) You're okay with adding to federal and individual rights by court decision alone. Some of the rest of us believe that can only be done through constitutional amendment.

1.) nope nothing wrong about it
2.) my beliefs play no role the courts decided going by the constitution
3.) correct thats way some social issues like i listed are none of their business
4.) again my beliefs play no role, reality, facts and history does

glad to clear up your confusion

 

[Goshin]

But of course, you're wrong. It depends on what you believe are "rights". The Constitution tells us what our actual rights are and what the federal and state governments may regulate. Everything else falls to the states and the people to decide. You're okay with adding to federal and individual rights by court decision alone. Some of the rest of us believe that can only be done through constitutional amendment.

Mmm.... actually the Founders were pretty clear that the BoR was NOT intended as an exhaustive list of the rights of the citizenry... just a short list of some of the most important ones.


The much-ignored 10th says all powers not given to the Fed nor specifically forbidden the States is the province of the States or the People.


IMHO, err of the side if individual liberty.


The State (generically, states or Fuds) should have to prove a compelling case any time they want to infringe on any sort of individual liberty in any way, and it should be a laborious process.

 

[Perotista]

Well, Susana Martinez, Governor of New Mexico, is all three.

Martinez popular across party lines | KOB.com

I expect Christie to be the nominee, but she could be the running mate.

that to me would be an ideal Republican Ticket. But I am not a Republican, so I think the chances of that happening are remote is not out of this universe.

 

[Mycroft]

1.) thanks
2.) so what is the state doesn't get to violate individual rights. Once court cases are made thats that

so like i said the state had no business in many social issues at all.
Thanks for answering.

Why would you say the states have no business in social issues? I would think they have MORE business since they are closer to the people.

I don't think I understand your point #2. The word, "is" causes that sentence to not make sense. Perhaps you can restate it?