What do you look for in a candidate for any office?

How so? I am saying people should act as individuals rather than parties? Because I explain the difference between access and influence to you all? What I say is anti-typical politician.

Preemptive TLDR Well what you say contradicts it self. You would prefer to be an individual, not labeling your beliefs: but would choose to seek the council of a zealot or true believer rather then speak to someone who may be on the same neutral ground. To most, being an individual, or basing your beliefs upon your own personal experience could translate into possibly crossing the "lines" into both parties 'belief' structures: This would make you an "independent". But since independents generally straddle the line between the two parties, they are almost always the first to be considered bipartisan. After all a label is a label: In most case, they are placed upon a person long before being adopted. In politics, labels are generally an easy way to eliminate a line of thought with out having to defend your own. Saying "...someone who acts bipartisan but actually believes in nothing." is a prime example of this practice. You are labeling an entire line of thought null and void with out every actually listening to it. This is foolish. However, it is American politics in a nutshell.

Incorrect, in no way is that first point a contradiction if you understood everything I said. I never said neutral ground, bi-partisan is something that to me usually accassociates itself with taking advantage of the middle ground when really the real middle ground people prefer individual beliefs and would never attribute their beliefs to a certain label like bi-partisan. If there is no middle ground but a bi-partisan poser I would gladly go with the people who actually believe in something on either end of the political spectrum. Independents being considered bi-partisan? Yoi realize that very statement by it's very definition is impossible right? Yes I am saying most but not all, and it comes from experience and.understanding politics and the definition of the word bi-partisan. Some of the worse things in this countries history happened as a result of bi-partisan agreements, like the 3/5ths a person compromise. History lesson time folks. The 3/5ths slave voting compromise was not about rights but the number more representatives in the house the south would get. In one of the most ironic twist in history the south attempted to free the slaves by giving them 1 full vote plus giving the south political advantage but the north did not want to lose political power so they wanted no voting rights for slaves. Then the 3/5ths compromise was born. In other words screw bipartisanship compromise. If you agree then work together (cooperation) but NEVER give up what you believe in just to gain something in a compromise when in office. Many of the worse atrocities in history have been a result of bi-partisan compromise.

Your understanding of politics is more or less based upon your own personal interpretation rather then a objective observation upon it: hence it is as subjective as your use of the 3/5th compromise as an example. Which I might add was a corner stone of the Constitution (article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, rendered moot after the 13th amendment(1865)). Which was written before 'political parties' even existed (quick historical note: 1797 was the first time where political parties started to take shape, prior to this, it was more about states vying for power with in the forming government then a political party or specific agenda). I could further dredge this dialog on for days, weeks, years, in an attempt to further define the reciprocal nature of your pretense. But I can see there is nothing to be gained from the further continuation of this discourse. Thank you for the discussion.

You are incorrect if you believe political parties did not exist at our very founding. Also you comment about object observation can only be described as bull. You are attempting to discredit my valid points by stating that they have a bias rather than argue against the the points I made. You in no way actually made a debate, your entire post was ment to shut down debate. Don't get in a discussion like this unless you are willing to actually discuss the subject. Also I would like to point out your original post insulting me on the premise that I was attacking neutral ground is unfounded, do you even know the definition of the words you used? What you said was honestly one of the greatest examples I could ever use for someone throwing around words and interpretation for words that they do not know the definition of. If you had you would know neutrality and bi-partisanship are nothing a like. Seriously learn the definition of the words you throw around. I am willing to look past it now and again but the mistakes you made were so big and foolish I felt compelled to point it out.

To be fair, you kinda were the first person to be insulting by stating after I mentioned that I voted in a bipartisan fashion that I apparently believe in nothing. That's pretty insulting to me personally

Actually if you read my comment again you would see "act in a bipartisan way" referring to politicians who use bi-partisanship as an act to gain something. I apologize if you felt like it was an attack on yourself but the tone of my whole post was geared to politicians so I assumed people would understand that. Just because you have beliefs on both sides can in no way mean you are bi-partisan. The word its self is very hard to attribute to a individuals beliefs by very definition. The word itself was probably invented to present a false idea, as politicians tend to do.

@Xueli - happy thoughts. Its only an 'insult' when it is directed at their ideals. When it is directed towards an individual like you or me, it is done under the guise of "educating" us. @Lagannfan..... Sigh. I take it you are the type who only reads the most current response. For you obviously didn't read any of my original posts. I have spent the past 17 yrs of my life studying philosophy, rhetoric, political nonsense, history (current and ancient) various realms of science and religions, debating and discussing topics that would leave you scratching your head in confusion, have been put in my place by minds far greater then you can even conceive, and and learned things from individuals of whom you wouldn't give the time of day to. (All of which I am sure you would consider a failure judging by your comments towards me....eh.. you're probably right.) Through all of this, the only thing I know for sure about anything in this amazing world is I know nothing. Every time I step forward and engage in a discussion such as this, I do so with the sole intent of learning not only about others, but more so in order to better understand my self; with the hope of learning something in the process. You however offer nothing I haven't encountered a hundred times before. I have seen your elitist bullshit time and time: I would have an easier time converting the Pope to Islam then discussing anything with you in a rational manner. So instead of taking the bait I would suggest that this topic fades to black. It is obvious that there are those who do not understand the difference between a forum and a pulpit.

Wow you are a piece of work. Like you didnt even read my post. Did I not say it was towards politicians and not ideals? You are an idiot sir. I never said ideals. You are putting words in my mouth just to attack me. You are either a troll or an idiot because you keep putting words up and keep trying to use my own words against me by twisting the meaning of those words. You call me an elitist? I suppose that is why I am running a free campaign and I am teaching the average person how to impact their city council who would normally ignore them,