Talk:American Independent Party

message: The official party website lists Ed Noonan as chairman, lists its national affiliation as America's Independent Party, and lists its Presidential candidate as Alan Keyes, yet the article lists the chairman as Jim King, lists its affiliation as the Constitution Party, and lists its Presidential candidate as Chuck Baldwin.  So which is it?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.29.151 (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats odd, considering its Alan Keyes, the new affiliate candidate, not Chuck Baldwin, on the ballot  --Estrill5766 (talk) 03:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  current party question 

message: Let me see if I follow this...  The AIP forms in 1968, then dies.  Then it is resurrected (or changes its name, depending how you look at it) as the AP in 1969.  In 1976, the AP splits, with one faction taking the original AIP name again.  Is that pretty much correct?  The article is hard to understand on this point, especially since shortly later it says the AIP has had ballot access in California since 1968 - which implies continuous existence under that name. Can someone please clarify? — ChristTrekker 17:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  strange history 

message: in the first paragraph.  article first says that wallace was on the ballot on all the states, and then says he was not.  which is it?
User:Nero42 22:28 10 March 2008  —Preceding comment was added at 02:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: contradiction

message: There is a fundamental confusion in this article between the STATE party and the national party with which it affiliates. The name of the State Party has remained AIP from the beginning until now. Changing the name of the State party means losing the voter registrations. Each State Party is free to affiliate with whatever national party will accept it. If the national party with which you are affiliated changes its name, nothing except the name of the national party changes; the state party name stays the same unless changed to match of course. If a State Party affiliates with a different party (with of course a different name), the State party's national party's name will change of course, but again the State party name is unaffected by the change of affiliation.
The current national affiliation of the AIP is the "American Party Of These United States (AIPOTUS)." This has been true since 2014. This article identifies it as America's Party which was changed from America's Independent Party to America's Party just before the AIP of California parted ways with it. See the official AIP web site http://www.aipca.org/. That this is the official web site can be officially vouched for at http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/political-parties/qualified-political-parties/
The affiliation with the Populist Party is inadequately covered since it omits the reason why while still affiliated with it the AIP did not put its national party's nominee on the ballot, but rather a local worthy. The reason? The Populist Party nominated the loathsome racist David Duke in 1988 which the AIP could not stomach.
BraveLad (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: clarification=

message: The website for the King faction now calls itself the Constitution Party of California.  It it time to split this article? Paul Studier (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to split the article?

message: The King Faction is trying to qualify its "Political Body" called the Constitution Party of California as a Ballot-Qualified political party. You can verify this at http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/political-parties/political-bodies-attempting-qualify/
Its voter registration is less than 400. It would have to be 1/3rd of 1 per cent of the total number of registered voters. Without spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions on petitions or a registration drive, there is no hope of a becoming a BALLOT-QUALIFIED party.
For the Elections Code scoop on New Parties & retaining Ballot Qualification see the following three code sections
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=04001-05000&file=5000-5006
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=05001-06000&file=5100-5102
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=05001-06000&file=5100-5102
BraveLad (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: King Faction Attempts to Become a California Political Party

message: Can someone explain what exactly the purpose of this party was? What was its platform? How did it separate itself from Rep/Dem? There's a lot of "who" in this article but no "what" or "why." zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What was this about?

message: I was there in 1968 and 1972. George Wallace ran on the American Party in 1968 and abandoned the it in 1972 for the American Independent Party.  I stayed with the American Party in 1972 and supported Schmidt.  Wallace was not a segregationist as such; he was pointing out how the United States had lost State's Rights at Ol' Miss confrontation.  As in the Civil War, it was a side issue.
Dot PateDot Pate (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong! Wallace did not abandon the "American Party" for the AIP in 1972; he ran in 1972 for the Democratic Party nomination. (I remember; I was in the field working for another Democratic candidate the day Wallace was shot.) --Orange Mike  |  Talk 19:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Party 

message: I think its time to remove the disputed part. The pro-CP side tried two lawsuits and lost. They have removed AIP references from their website. The AIP-CA is now the state affiliate of the national AIP officially. --Estrill5766 (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it (a year later lol). Beam 05:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  We've waited long enough 

message: Added a line to identify the modern American Conservative Party as having no connection or affiliation with the defunct Wallace-era party of the same name. COI disclosure: I am the national party's Secretary.  There's also a news article somewhere about the old ACP operating in Georgia, which we ran across when creating the new Georgia chapter; if I can find the link I may add it as a source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimsonsplat (talk • contribs) 03:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: User: Political Dweeb here wants to understand something from whoever is the real existing chairman of the American Independent Party, to do with segregation. It is explained on Wikipedia that the AIP’s governor George Wallace “apologized to black civil rights leaders for his earlier segregationist views.” Does this mean that the American Independent Party renounces their previous support for segregation they helped promote in George Wallace’s campaign which he opposes?--Political Dweeb (talk)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.237.27 (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: PD’s new message

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on American Independent Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080717001002/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_f.htm to http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_f.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The founder of the American Independent Party of California and the national American Independent Party was William Shearer, now deceased.
The University of California Shield's Library has a complete collection of Shearer's publication, the California Statesman which antedated his founding of the AIP. It is comprised of a set of related newsletters, one of which "The American Independent" contains the records of the doings of the AIP from its inception. The American Independent had a series of articles on the history of the party, excerpted and published under the title "American Independent Party, A History" from issues of the American Independent published from June 1986 till June/July 1995.
I have a copy of that publication (which is clearly in the public domain as the official organ of the AIP).
It is not available yet online, but I have an additional incentive to see that it is, given Wikipedia guidelines and preferences for the use of material in its Articles.
My question on this is whether citations from this primary source of AIP history may be made even though it is available as far as I know at just one library, the UCD Shields Library to which I have lifetime access as a Berkeley Alum. I have the authority to publish it on the AIP website www.aipca.org. This has been the only official website of the Secretary of State recognized party organization for a long time, with no interruption or replacement.
The UCD Shields Library is just down the road from me here in Vacaville at AIP Headquarters. The current address given for the AIP HQ in the American Independent Party article is that of past Chairman Edward (Ed) Noonan, after which there have been five chairmanships.
The links to the King Faction material in the Article you will note are all dead now, since it lost the attempt to acquire control of the party. I have additional source material of the complete record of three lawsuits filed by the King Faction, all of which failed.
Political parties, among other things, are repositories of political opinion, embodied in platforms. So articles on them are facts about opinions, which are not opinions themselves. I was unaware of this talk tab as a newbie. I just didn't notice it before I launched into making edits. I see now that I should have played in the sandbox first. I've been involved with computers now since 1969 and had a commercial website since 1988. At age 72 I don't feel much like the typical sandbox occupant, but now I have bucket and scoop in hand and am ready to dig in.
I am now on my second reading of the one and only (and partial) history of the AIP, so I would have to admit to being a field expert with first hand experience dating from 2007. I must admit to being personally involved, as was indeed the author of that history, William Shearer, for whom I wrote and delivered a eulogy at his Memorial Dinner. I succeeded Ed Noonan as Chairman in 2008. After Noonan was sued unsucessfully, I was also sued twice, unsuccessfully as well. I obtained copies from the two Courts involved of all the proceedings of these suits.
I am the current Secretary of the AIP and the Chairman of its Executive Committee. Although it will be an effort I believe that I can adopt an objective documented approach to the Article despite all that. I am also quite an expert on the AIP Platform, which has been in place since July 5, 2008, since I wrote it.It does suffer a lack of positions on many topics. I realize now that I must work on improving the source of facts about AIP opinions on political topics by seeing an expanded platform adopted.
One topic is a bit sore. The current article has the AIP down as anti-immigration. The platform of the AIP reads "We oppose all illegal immigration. We support secure borders and immigration policies, inviting the best of the world to join us in freedom." http://www.aipca.org/platform.html So the AIP is factually, officially on record as opposed to illegal immigration and supportive of merit-based immigration, open to all the best in the world. This is not ANTI-immigration.
I seek approval of the community to correct the headquarters address and to delete the anti-immigration ideological position as a starting point while I play my way out of the sandbox.
BraveLad (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources of Public Data on the American Independent Party 

message: Wallace did not run on a segregationist platform.   You are confusing him with Strom Thurmond's run as a Dixiecrat.   Or you don't know what segregationist platforms were. Or you are putting up false information intentionally, for some political purpose. 
I am trying to remember.  Wallace may have run as being opposed to busing as a means of racial integration of schools.  He may have had run expressing reservations about affirmative action as it was then proposed.  Those are different than segregationism. Those are matters of the practicalities of how the end of segregation would be implemented.  There were quite valid non-racist, non-segregationist reasons to oppose both as they were proposed and implemented in 1968, as the failure of those policies to achieve a parity of well-being and prosperity across racial lines has demonstrated.  The demonizing of Wallace at the time created an atmosphere in which Arthur Bremer say him as an appropriate target for assassination.  This sort of demonization, continues in accusing him  - and the United States itself for that matter - of tolerating a segregationist presidential run in 1968.  Hypercallipygian (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You're trying to remember? Wikipedia goes by verifiable sources, so personal recollections are of no interest. Multiple reliable sources, both here, at George Wallace presidential campaign, 1968, and in other related articles classify Wallace's 1968 campaign as pro segregation. While many sources halfheartedly debate whether he was a sincere segregationist, or was merely pandering to a racist base, the end result it exactly the same. His 1970 gubernatorial campaign, two years later, has been characterized by multiple sources as extremely racist. As for Bremmer, he himself made it clear that his motivation was the desire for fame, and had little to do with Wallace's politics. Grayfell (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wallace did not run for president on a segregationist platform. 

message: According to http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/07/wikinews-interview-with-california-american-independent-party-primary-winner/ , "The results of the [June 7, 2016 California American Independent] primary are nonbinding. The AIP is to nominate its 2016 presidential ticket at its convention August 13–14 [, 2016]." Thus, there won't be official 2016 AIP nominees for U.S. President and Vice President until that convention takes place. Mksword (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official 2016 AIP nominees for U.S. President and Vice President 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: According to http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/07/wikinews-interview-with-california-american-independent-party-primary-winner/ , "The results of the [June 7, 2016 California American Independent] primary are nonbinding. The AIP is to nominate its 2016 presidential ticket at its convention in August. Thus, there won't be official 2020 AIP nominees for U.S. President and Vice President until that convention takes place.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:D118:604A:18B1:1560:104:5940 (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official 2020 AIP nominees for U.S. President and Vice President 

message: I feel as if we should mention the trump issue as trump has shown he never intended to join the AIP so i feel like we should make a part of the article that states 
"Trump and the AIP"
"Donald J Trump former president of the USA was chosen by the AIP to be the man that the AIP has chosen for its party in 2016 during the presidential elections Trump didn't wish for this nor want that but the AIP still made him rule the party without his knowledge and even in 2022 the AIP webpage still acts as if Donald J Trump agrees to run in 2024 under the banner of the AIP." https://www.aipca.org/&usg=AOvVaw3VHfoHgTyTvo-kHzL9wDF4 https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/02/politics/trump-american-independent-party-california/index.html&usg=AOvVaw0uwQWXqST03S9u6-AVFmBv https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-donald-trump-california-ballot-american-independent-party-20160815-snap-story.html&usg=AOvVaw2PrswFvXICFCzW7gh7yvJZ Diepanzerwaffles (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIP Trump edit 

message: Not a far-right party. 2600:1011:B020:65CD:E1EB:3222:ED22:C802 (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a far-right party. 

message: Party chairman Markham Robinson is dead. The article needs to be updated to reflect who, if anyone, is in charge and what, if anything, the party is doing in 2022 and what plans, if any, the party has for 2024. 2600:6C52:4C00:35C3:55A1:180E:79E6:2745 (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Markham Robinson 

message: Independent Party was and always will be the center and their color is white as the independent part of the American flag so who ever the Pelosi tide pod eater who wrote this article should probably have their IPs banned since this is complete bullshit 2601:185:8200:DA40:60BC:B870:532A:196A (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: what sources do you have? 2600:8801:FB13:6B00:F970:45A2:3B7F:D343 (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who ever wrote this article  

message: this is biased, Citation please! 12.165.101.142 (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  understood by political analysts as having pro-segregationist or white supremacist undertones