r/independent

Welcome to a series I call Thinking Tuesdays (First installment) in which every tuesday I bring forth possible discussion topics for Independents like us to discuss about. I'll try to do this every Tuesday though I'm only human and can make mistakes.

It shouldn't be unreasonable to believe that plenty of us independents are tired of the duopoly that holds a deep grip on U.S society, but how exactly do we break the duopoly AND how do we make sure a new duopoly doesn't take its place? Identifying the problem is the first step in fixing the problem, the next phase is brainstorming ways to actually fix the problem then implement it

Would love to know your proposals and whether it is feasible to achieve this.

As this is the first installment, I'm testing waters here, if this goes well, I will continue to do this, though there's no point in continuing this idea of mine if it isn't engaging civil and constructive discussion here.

1. Nationalism (Ban corporate lobbying, abolish dual citizenship, deport all foreign nationals)
2. Right-Libertarianism (Anti-crony free market, decriminalized drugs, liberty in privacy, regulated prostitution, pro-private property)
3. Social Conservatism (Pro-life, anti-Marxism, nuclear family values, capital punishment)
4. Populism (Direct democracy and yeoman principles)
5. Radicalism (Destruction of the status-quo is necessary, militia jurisdictions)

Please explain your reasoning in the comments.

**Community Update** 

Edit: Linked community update for context

View Poll

I am apart of a movement that is trying to bring back the old Progressive/“Bull Moose” Party that was created by Theodore Roosevelt. The movement is Socially Progressive and Fiscally Responsible.

If anybody is interested, R/BullMooseParty is our main location but we also have a website.

I hope you all have a good rest of your day or night, bye.

Bot accounts and bad-faith political actors have been trying to derail conversations and manipulate vote counts. Certain keywords seem to trigger them to pop in on certain topics. We don’t want this space to continue to be infiltrated by partisan influencers or subjected to coordinated political attacks and brigading. None of the major parties have had our interests in mind or have stood up for our rights as independent voters. They have put barriers in front of independent candidates, limiting our right to equal representation and access to taxpayer-funded election infrastructure. They will continue to do what they want, with or without our input. We need to have our own space to discuss the issues that matter most to our community, outside of their influence.

Bots and partisan influence aside, the quality of discussion has severely declined as we have continued to grow in size. We want to make sure that only people who actually want to participate in good faith enter the community. We hope that by doing so we will be able to have more meaningful conversations with people from across the political spectrum who also believe we need a government that is not beholden to partisan control. We also hope that by improving the quality of discussions, those of you who have not felt comfortable sharing your perspectives in the past or who felt it wasn’t worth the effort because people would mischaracterize you will now feel empowered to contribute to discussions. Together, we can put forward new ideas to find common ground on topics that the parties have been fighting over for decades.

In short, we think banning bots and bad-faith actors after they have already negatively influenced the conversation is more detrimental than simply having the sub restricted and requiring people to make the conscious decision to request to join the community. The platform is already heavily biased toward the two major parties, so it is much more feasible this way to keep bots and partisan actors out. This is a space for independent discussion outside the two-party framework. Respectful disagreement is welcome; partisan campaigning, brigading, vote manipulation, and bad-faith participation are not.

Thank you all for being part of this community.

***

We are looking for additional moderators who can help verify new users and bring a wider range of independent political perspectives to the mod team. To be eligible, applicants should be active members of the community by making posts and/or comments that demonstrate sound judgment and respectful conduct when discussing controversial topics. If you’re interested in helping, please reach out to us.

I'm seriously considering if an extinction event from climate change acceleration (which is basically the conservative party's entire platform at this point) will be preferable to me continuing to try to work with the lazy, disinterested & often outright adversarial liberal parties whose sole concession to my demographic is nothing more than acknowledging climate change exists (those virtues won't signal themselves!)

Interacting with liberals/leftists for the past few years has honestly destroyed whatever faith I had remaining in humanity. For too long I was under the false impression that liberals cared about anything. It turns out liberals care about something only as far as addressing it won't inconvenience their lifestyle even slightly.

When the supposed "good guys" are this useless, evil, & unwilling to make even the tiniest changes to their toxic opulent lifestyles, what is the point of even trying to preserve this? I don't want it anymore. Maybe we'll get to try again in a few million years after this new dinosaur age we're accelerating into transitions back into another ice age. Who knows how lucky it was that we even got to evolve into such a privileged position in the first place. We may very well be the last lifeforms this sophisticated to evolve on this planet during its lifetime.

Zero concessions from liberals for actions needed for the things I care about; the planet and not participating in exploitation. My vote is somehow expected though.

I'm done. Go next.

In this in-depth interview, Jeremy Todd — the Libertarian Party candidate for U.S. House in Kentucky’s 4th Congressional District — explains why he jumped into the race after Thomas Massie’s primary loss and how a rapid grassroots effort got him on the November 2026 ballot.

Lana Leguía, a Libertarian candidate for New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District, will remain off the general election ballot after the state Supreme Court declined to hear her appeal of an appellate ruling removing her from the race. Leguía said she now intends to take the dispute to federal court.

The New Jersey Globe reported on August 7 that the state Supreme Court declined to hear Leguía’s appeal, leaving in place a July 31 Appellate Division decision that invalidated most of her nominating petition signatures. That lower court previously found that Secretary of State Dale Caldwell lacked the authority to disregard a state requirement that circulators of general election petitions be New Jersey residents.

America’s elevator shortage is making housing more expensive, buildings less accessible, and cities less dynamic—all because of bad regulations and union protectionism.

Who are we voting for in group 4, port of Palm beach and why? Candidates are Blair J. Ciklin and Brian Lamb.

Men who fled socialism warn Americans what can follow as government gains power

It’s very troubling that Dr. Fauci may have said one thing on COVID and personally communicated entirely differently. He was courted by both sides of the big 2 parties. It’s very troubling to see these texts.

The official ballot title was as follows:

“Do you want to set a $5,000 limit for giving to political action committees that spend money independently to support or defeat candidates for office?"

Question 1 passed with 74.9 percent of the vote.

The AP called it "an emphatic vote" in a record turnout election on November 5, 2024.

The measure got 600,191 votes, more than any initiative or candidate has ever gotten in the history of Maine.

Two super PACs promptly sued. The State of Maine agreed to wait to implement the law pending the outcome of the federal lawsuit.

A US district court judge found that contributions "can serve as the quid in a quid pro quo arrangement," but she struck the law down anyway, citing Supreme Court precedent.