Talk:American Independent Party

current party question
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)

Please note careful deception. The official party website is http://www.aipca.org. The website you are quoting is http://www.aip-ca.org. Noonan's group has produced that site, by hijacking the previous site, changing passwords and putting in an illegal redirect. Party Treasurer Charles Deemer is owner of the domain name and is in full agreement with Chairman King. Legal recourse to restore passwords to site are pending.

Current legal interim website is http://www.aipcalif.blogspot.com

The American Independent Party held its lawful and ordered convention on the weekend of June 28th 2008 as is referenced here at major independent news source about third parties - "Third Party Watch"

http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/06/30/aip-holds-its-state-convention-endorses-chuck-baldwin-and-reaffirms-cp-affiliation/

Any information posted here announcing disaffiliation of the American Independent Party from the Constitution Party is absolutely bogus, and disinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.189.198 (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thats odd, considering its Alan Keyes, the new affiliate candidate, not Chuck Baldwin, on the ballot --Estrill5766 (talk) 03:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

strange history
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? &mdash; ChristTrekker 17:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

contradiction
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)

clarification
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)

Split in party
According to Third Party Watch, the AIP has split into two factions, one supporting Chuck Baldwin and the Constitution party, and the other supporting Alan Keyes and the America's Independent Party. Without starting a war, which side has ballot access? Do we wait for a court case? Paul Studier (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the history, I see substantial disagreements here. Should we include information on both factions? Or should we give each faction a separate article? I am a Libertarian, so I don't have a dog in this fight. Paul Studier (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have decided to call the two factions the Noolan and the King faction. Is the following true? Paul Studier (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

King Faction
Supports Chuck Baldwin for president.

Has new website http://www.aipcalif.blogspot.com/

Not listed as the Qualified Political Party by the CA Secretary of State as of July 16, 2008. 

Has new address.

Held convention in Los Angeles on June 28-29, elected King to state chair. 

nonan Faction
Supports Alan Keyes for president.

Controls the domain name http://aipca.org, which redirects to http://www.aip-ca.org.

Listed as the Qualified Political Party by the CA Secretary of State as of July 16, 2008. 

Claims old address.

Held convention in Sacramento on July 5, 2008. 

Further Discussion
I removed the split template. I think that we should present information on both of these factions on the article page, and update it to reflect any news or SOS decisions or court cases. Comments? Paul Studier (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Paul: The Secretary of State will be ruling on the two conventions (King/Noonan) that have been held very shortly. One will be considered valid, the other not. Perhaps best to wait until the SOS makes their ruling before putting up split information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.189.198 (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting! Do you have a quotable source for this? How long will they take?  Regardless of how they rule, I think the split is noteworthy.  When the Libertarian Party in Arizona had a split, it took years and several court cases to resolve it. IMHO, we should put something on the main page about this in the next couple days, even if the "winner" of this fight is not known. Paul Studier (talk) 07:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 71.165.189.198: Why don't you sign up for an account. It is free, and you don't have to give your real name. Paul Studier (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Paul,

I tried to put this into the article; please improve it if you can without removing information (I thought the dueling infoboxes just didn't work). -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Help! I've busted the infoboxes and can't figure out what's wrong! -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I fixed the infoboxes, so I removed the now redundant information in the lead paragraphs.


 * Bill, thank you for your reply. We should keep it updated as things unfold. Does anyone have more detail with sources a bit more reliable than blog entries? Paul Studier (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the Noonan faction is recognized by the SOS. However, I think we should keep the information on both factions for several reasons. The King faction might sue and win. Or the conflict could drag out for a long time like the split in the Libertarian Party of Arizona a few years ago. Eventually one faction might change their name in which case the information will be the start of a new article. However this happens, it would be nice to keep the history in the article. Paul Studier (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the Noonan faction should be listed as paleoconservative, since paleocons are non-interventionist and don't support Iraq. Neocon doesn't fir either though. How about Federal Conservative or National Conservative?

--Estrill5766 (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I just looked it up and as of April 2009 the CA SOS designates Robinson as the official chairman of the AIP. link can be found here    --Estrill5766 (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Time to split the article?
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)

There is no official website for the King Faction.

The website that you are referring to is to aid voters in their attempts to write in Chuck Baldwin as a candidate in California for the 2008 election.

The issue of which factions convention in regards to officers, and control of the party, for 2008 to 2010 is still open and has not been litigated yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.14.162 (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the split template. I have found no reliable source that the King Faction intends to form a new party, and some information that I can't publish that indicated that the issue will be litigated. Paul Studier (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

King Faction Attempts to Become a California Political Party
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)

What was this about?
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)

American Party
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)
 * 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  &#x007C;   Talk  19:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

We've waited long enough
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)


 * I removed it (a year later lol). Beam 05:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation
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)

PD’s new 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)
 * After the 1968 election, Wallace returned to the Democratic Party. He was elected governor three more times as a Democrat and ran in the Democratic presidential primaries twice. Therefore, he wasn't "AIP's governor" nor did he speak for AIP after 1968. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The American Independent Party has left segregation and racism far behind. One clue to this is the nomination of Alan Keyes as its Presidential nominee. As past chairman of the AIP and current Executive Committee Chairman of it, I can assure you that I would never even have registered with the party if I had suspected it of still supporting such views. We agree that separate is inherently unequal and proscribed by a correct #SCOTUS opinon that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal and violated the equal protection of the laws duty of every State according the the 14th Amendment. BraveLad (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources of Public Data on the American Independent Party
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)

The List of Resources:

The official web site of the AIP http://www.aipca.org/

The California Statesman complete set of editions available at UCD Shields Library which includes the American Independent Newsletter and its series of articles on the "American Independent Party, A History."

Sundry articles in Ballot Access News (http://ballot-access.org/).

Sundry articles in Independent Political Report (http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/).

California Elections Code. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=elec

California Secretary of State Elections Division. http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/

The Bylaws of the American Independent Party. I will add them to the AIP website.

The Minutes of State meetings of the Central Committee, its Executive Committee and of its Elections Code-mandated Biennial Convention and State Central Committee meetings (held on successive days, Saturday and Sunday). I have now been authorized to put these documents on the official web site by the current State Central Committee Chairman, now that litigation is sufficiently in our rear view mirror.

Press Releases by the AIP from 2008 on. As the author and/or editor of most of them and custodian of the AIP official web site, I will be adding these to its official web site, prompted by needs indeed for references in edits to AIP Wikipedia Article.

Documents on the three lawsuits either made available online by the Court or if not available there, posted on the AIP official web site.

BraveLad (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Left-Wing Bias in the Characterization of the American Independent Party as Far Right Wing.
The AIP Platform is entirely inconsistent with what amount to the UNSOURCED SLANDER of its appellation as a "far right political party".

Here is the first paragraph of the "Far-right politics" article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics

"Far-right politics are right-wing politics to the right of the mainstream centre right on the traditional left-right spectrum. They often involve a focus on tradition as opposed to policies and customs that are regarded as reflective of modernism. They often have a disregard or disdain for egalitarianism, if not overt support for social inequality and social hierarchy, elements of social conservatism and opposition to most forms of liberalism and socialism. The terms are commonly used to describe Nazism, neo-Nazism, Fascism, neo-Fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, or reactionary views.[1] Some far-right movements, such as the Nazis, have pursued oppression and genocide against groups of people on the basis of their alleged inferiority or their alleged threat to the nation or state.[2]"

The ONLY statement in the above that the AIP can tolerate is "They often involve a focus on tradition as opposed to policies and customs that are regarded as reflective of modernism" even though this still exhibits a left-wing bias. The "tradition" that the AIP upholds is the CONSTITUTION, which is not mere "tradition," but LAW, the fundamental law in accord with which all laws that are not void are to be made. The Constitution is what all officials must swear to support before they are allowed to enter upon their offices. Some "tradition!"

Speaking for the AIP, we would rather there not BE an AIP article than be so characterized.

Judge for yourself. Read our Platform. http://www.aipca.org/platform.html Read our History. http://www.aipca.org/history.html

BraveLad (talk) 08:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia goes by a long view and WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, with a strong preference for secondary sources when covering controversial or WP:FRINGE topics. This is not a platform for advocacy or dissemination of party promotional materials. Sources consistently and overwhelmingly link the party to Wallace and segregation, which is undeniably far right. Some sources talk about Lester Maddox, or Willis Carto, who were also far-right. The more modern tendency towards populism and right-libertarianism is fully compatible with a far-right ideology, even if it's less overtly racist. There is an abundance of neutral, independent sources describing the party as far right, as it certainly is much farther right than any mainstream party or position. A quick search found these, and I'm sure there are plenty more where that came from:


 * Challengers to Duopoly: Why Third Parties Matter in American Two-Party Politics
 * Right Star Rising: A New Politics, 1974-1980
 * The Hearts of Men: American Dreams and the Flight from Commitment
 * Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right
 * Etc, etc, etc.
 * If you can find any independent (as opposed to Independent) sources which credibly make the claim that the party is no-longer far-right, bring them here for discussion. Please also read about having a conflict of interest.
 * "States' rights" is very often used as a euphemism for segregation and Jim Crow, and the phrase is too loaded to be meaningful in the lead of encyclopedia article without additional context and attribution. Grayfell (talk) 10:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Wallace did not run for president on a segregationist platform.
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)


 * 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)

Official 2016 AIP nominees for U.S. President and Vice President
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)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
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)
 * Donald Trump official portrait.jpg

Official 2020 AIP nominees for U.S. President and Vice President
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)

Party is Far Right?
The party is deemed far right and yet it's origins have many Democrat Party links; which itself had(s) strong segregational views and policies.

How is it that the left is able to get away with re-writing their own history consistently; simultaneously switching it to the right (keeping up with their propaganda that everyone on the right is evil and wrong!).

You want truth, balance and honesty? Start holding that light up to the left wing first. You'll see just as much, if not more demonic acts in the shadows. Menteurvainqueur (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Wallace campaign of 1968 and this party were created because the Democratic Party's old racist and far-right components were no longer welcome in the Democratic Party. There is no rewriting of history involved.
 * You also seem to be laboring under the delusion that the Democratic Party and "the left" are synonymous. Your lack of a grasp of reality is really stunning. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  14:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Grasp of reality? Oh please the only one who isn’t grasping reality here is you. If you can be so blind as to think the Democratic party has changed for the better, think again. And under the American Independent Party position, the delusional position of “far-right” has 4 citations all of which are from politically bias organizations who criticize the right for not fitting their agenda. Wikipedia is a place meant for facts, not anyone’s politics. The position of “Far-right” is a term used to describe authoritarian and ultranationalist views, non of which the American Independent Party holds. The American Independent party as stated from the manifesto on their site, “We support secure borders and immigration policies inviting the best of the world to join us in freedom”, clearly supports all legal immigration and is not ultranationalist whatsoever. The American Independent Party also supports little government interference, ALSO stated on this site, stop the BS and quit pushing your politics. JSPolitic (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you noticed that American reactionaries seem to think that the word "biased" is spelled "bias"? I never see it from American conservatives, moderates, liberals, radicals or even the stupidest of the left. That particular grammatical error seems to be unique to American reactionaries. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  13:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

AIP Trump edit
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)

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

Markham Robinson
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)

Who ever wrote this article
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)


 * what sources do you have? 2600:8801:FB13:6B00:F970:45A2:3B7F:D343 (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

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