I think we've all been there. Tired of it, tired of the corrupt major parties. You have one that I honestly believe is made up corrupt idiot assholes (Republicans). You have another that has some people intending to do good but are incompetent or spineless and the rest are just as corrupt as the Republicans while pretending to be "progressive" when they're the farthest thing from it.

My problems with democrats:

• corrupt
• pro-drug war
• pro-fed
• pro-war
• not strong enough on the environment
• not strong enough for gay rights
• not strong enough for women's rights
• not strong enough corporate regulation
• pro-bailouts
• pro-teacher union
• pro corporate personhood
• anti-privacy
• pro torture
• pro isreal

My problem with repubilicans:

• racist
• sexist
• homophobic
• theocratic
• war mongers
• corrupt
• believe in knee jerk punishments to societal problems rather than reasoned solutions.
• pro bailouts
• pro fed
• pro drug war
• anti-healthcare solutions of any kind (including market based solutions. it seems they're only capable of criticizing the dems solutions)
• pro corporate rape of the world and everything in it.
• anti-privacy
• pro torture
• pro isreal

But I go and I look at third parties and different modes of thought and find myself utterly incapable of attaching myself to any of them to a point where i could say i'm "mostly" one thing or another.

Constitution Party

Religious nut bags, next.

My problem with Libertarians:

• consistent science deniers (global warming). I know they value their economic liberty as a civil right within itself and to an extent it makes sense. But you mention global warming around them and it's like mentioning the holocaust to NeoNazi's. You get this emotive reaction and arm flailing about how all the scientists in all the countries, and all the governments are in on the "big lie" to fool all of us. It's a conspiracy of such proportions I think holocaust deniers and those who think the moon walk was done in a hollywood basement look sane by comparison. So why do they so actively deny it? Well pollution, especially when it is teeny tiny amount from each one of us, actively damaging the atmosphere.. it's hard to hold someone wholly responsible in a court under their system. Who do you sue? Do you sue everyone ? They're system is simply ill equipped. Sure, there are some free market environmental solutions and I support those whole heartedly. But I just find denying scientific fact because it violates your anti-pragmatic world view intellectually dishonest. I don't need to associate with anyone that fanatical about their political philosophy to the point they can't smell their own bullshit.

• were happy about the supreme court decision enabling corporations to donate freely to campaign ads. The idea that supposed "liberty-lovers" believe in corporate personhood is laughable.

• they claim pro-choice, yet worship the likes of Ron Paul. Too many within the party or fans of the party are simply small government moral-majority republicans in sheep's clothing.

Too many libertarians were all gung-ho about the war initially. This is what makes me think that, even though most stand against corporatism and for civil rights, that many are Republicans in disguise.

My problem with communist-anarchists.

• They can't answer basic questions like: how do you prevent and/or punish (or otherwise handle) violent criminals. They have great critiques about what causes violence and how society should be shaped in a way to prevent such violence from occurring but no solutions to handle modern day problems that are happening right now. Apparently the only answer they have to a dude getting jumped and his jaw broken, is for the guy to join a neighborhood association to prevent further crime and allow the thugs to walk free. Talk about putting your fucking on-paper philosophy above real world solutions. I guess neighborhood associations and hand holding everyone and creating a world that imprisons violent offenders away from innocent civilians is just too much to ask. Cultural causes of violence can be reduced, but you'll never get rid of it. And that you don't get rid of needs to be dealt with somehow. This single issue makes me think most anarchists don't believe in anything in order to separate anarchy from chaos. And in fact, any of the solutions to the problem will negate the existence of anarchy. This thread illustrates this perfectly: http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/auppu/ask_anarchism_subreddit_how_ought_anarchists/

-They have no way to prevent a state or corporation rising to power, or capitalism infiltrating a hypothetical anarchist society without a central authority that they oppose.

• Furthermore as we've seen, any time communism has been attempted off paper in anything larger than a commune, the whole "anarchist" part goes right out the window and a government who shares more with a fascist state than it does with a free state ends up in power. (Vietnam, N Korea, China, USSR, etc..)

My problems with greens:

• have little (or show little) comprehension of fiscal responsibility and see's government bloat as the answer to every problem no matter how big or small. Granted, they at least acknowledge that the deficit is an issue in need of fixing (as do libertarians), which is something the two major parties shit on, but the sheer size of government programs they want do little to make me think they would get around to fixing it either.

• has a huge image problem. They're last 3 candidates was a guy who just runs and runs and runs for president rather than trying to make change in other more constructive ways (nader), Cynthia McKinney best known for violence against a cop while she was a member of the House, and David Cobb who talked with a lisp and referred to himself in the 3rd person during the 3rd party debates in 2004. And maybe this is just an image thing (and completely anecdotal), but I've found most people who identify as "green" that i've met personally to usually be a few marbles short. I just sit and wait for them to talk to me about the zodiac or my heart chakra, or some spiritual pseudo-science twist on quantum physics.

• are politically correct to the point of absurdity (they're for reparations) and who completely support self-imposed victimhood based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.. I understand very well where the system favors whites over blacks, women over men, men over women, and the way it treats immigrants and homosexuals unfairly. And all of these things need to be fixed. But this endless Whole Foods guilt complex i find to be a horrible approach.

I read Hayek, Chomsky, Marx, Rand, Zinn, hell even some sprinkling of Nader, Al Franken and Michael Moore among other texts... and I just can't help it. I don't think I'm smarter than these guys. I don't think i'm more knowledgeable than these guys. But for some reason, I can't help but think every political speaker, philosopher, politicians, even the uncorrupted and well-intended.. at times sound like they're completely full of themselves and are completely deluded when their world view doesn't fit a particular situation.

I guess my question is, is anyone else like this? Where they just don't fit in the grand political spectrum and that you float around a bit and don't really stick anywhere? Where you look at mode of thought after mode of thought and at first you're like "fuck yeah" and then after a little exposure and allowing the mode of thought to circle around for a bit you can't help but look at the group with a little bit of disdain because these people seem incapable of not knowing when their worldview doesn't really create the desired effect? It always make feel a bit lost and a bit unsure about myself. I sit back and i criticize where other's philosophies are not pragmatic, but i take no joy in the fact that i have no philosophy. I have no desired set of unbending rules that make up what I believe. What I believe is fluid to consequence and to context. And it makes me feel a tad unstable and a tad anti-intellectual. To win a debate, to even pick a side in a debate it's usually pretty good to have a solid foundation in which to base all your arguments from, the branches of your feelings of various smaller subjects always come back to the "big themes" found within your philosophical foundation.. .and I simply feel I don't have that and it bothers me a tad, because I know without this foundation I am bound to contradict myself and i'm bound to by hypocritical somewhere in my line of thinking. But I can't seem to find any mode of thought that I wholly agree with either. Not enough to identify as such. But it a philosophy or a party. Either/or.