Presidential candidates Hargis and Adams form Independents Together

Independent presidential candidates Bob Hargis and Steve Adams have joined together to form Independents Together. Their shared platform includes a balanced budget, border security, and alternative energy.

Q. Are you guys going to match up to be president and vice president?

A. We have discussed the matter favorably, but time will tell. We each have VP candidates in mind, but none committed. For now we have agreed to continue our individual campaigns.

Q. Will Independents Together accept others candidates?

A. We will play this by ear; but if an independent candidate wishes to join us, shares our common goals, and strives to run a positive campaign; we welcome them to contact us.

Other than pointing out their similarities and a website that promotes them, I don’t understand how candidates competing against each other can join together. Visit their website at and decide for yourself.

34 Responses to “Presidential candidates Hargis and Adams form Independents Together

  1. Trent Hill Says:

    Seems like they have become fast friends. Good.
    They probably COULD do a P/VP ticket…except I’d bet neither one would be willing to conceded “The presidency”.

  2. Anthony Distler Says:

    Just think…all this time that they’ve spend forming an Independent union, they could have spend on gain ballot access.

    One state, guys. That’s all I ask…

  3. Trent Hill Says:

    Hehe. Iv never seen the point in these real low-income, low-visibility guys running as independants when, even if they get some visibility, no one can vot efor them cuz they have no ballot-access. Whereas if they simply campaigned for the nomination of the party that most closely represents them, they could mnake some headway.

  4. globalist_elitist Says:

    This reminds me of those two freaks from American Idol. The poor fat kid with autism and his friend who looked like a “Bush Baby.”

  5. globalist_elitist Says:

    Low-income, low-visibility, low-IQ, and zero-imagination. Look at their platforms. What is really different about them? They don’t have any uniqueness or anything that sets them apart. Their “Indpendents United” is virtually all no-brainer stuff. Although one plank makes is kinda clear why they can’t run for a third-party nomination, Trent. The one thing that every serious third party (LP, GP, CP, and even Reform and Natural Law when they were viable) shares is a general anti-war, anti-militarist position.

  6. Trent Hill Says:

    True GE. But still,it would even be smarter to form their OWN political party,or attempt to run through another party (changing its policies, via Buchanan/Reform Party).

  7. globalist_elitist Says:

    Smarter? The guys aren’t smart to begin with. Ideas? They don’t have any.

  8. Trent Hill Says:


  9. globalist_elitist Says:

    I’m not trying to be mean for the hell of it. But these guys just have typical center-right ideologies that offer nothing new. These aren’t guys running to build a party or to bring new ideas to a wider audience - they are running on ego trips and/or under the psychotic delusion that they could possibly be elected for real.

  10. Shelley Says:

    You have formed a lot of opinions about them without really knowing them. The point they are making is that the US needs unity. Anything they accomplish to inform voters about the need for change is good news. If they aren’t on the ballots, then it shouldn’t hurt you feelings that they are politically active, if they do make it on the ballots, then you … well, I guess you’d be wrong.  Give the guys a break!

  11. Steve Adams Says:

    Baseless insults aside, ballot access will certainly be a focus. We’re focused on gathering momentum now. No, we don’t have the money and name recognition of the main parties. But the point you gentlemen are missing, is that we are independents on purpose. Sure we could run with a party, but then we would be beholden to the party line, the party power brokers, and the financiers who bought our way into office. Our goal is the reach the White House to owe and serve only the voters. Remember that government OF, BY, and FOR the people speech? Why not?
    Long shot, sure. Psychotic, not even close. The US Constitution requires me to be a natural born citizen and 35 years old. It does not require me to be rich or popular. Those conditions have been added by closed minded, two party voters and those with the money or power to make it so.

  12. Bob Hargis Says:

    The great news is that we are free to express ourselves in this fashion without penalty. One of my concerns is that it remains that way. So, if I accomplish nothing more than to help some citizens realize that Americans are allowed to ask for change and that they have a powerful voice when united together, then I am satisfied.

  13. Bob Hargis Says:

    I forgot to say thanks for posting our News Release!

  14. Trent Hill Says:

    Adams and Hargis.

    We at TPW advocate for equal ballot access for ALL candidates. And that includes you.
    However, we are often deeply driven by ideology, so don’t be offended if we state where we disagree with you.

  15. globalist_elitist Says:

    The last thing we need in this country is more “unity.”

    United I Stand, By Myself, Against Collectivism.

    That should be the motto of an independent candidate. I would vote for him or her.

  16. Darcy Richardson Says:

    Good point. The whole “unity” thing eerily reminds me of the widely-publicized “Bring Us Together” sign secretly planted along the railroad tracks by Richard Nixon’s advance team during the 1968 presidential campaign, not to mention George W. Bush’s famous line: “I’m a uniter, not a divider.”

    Steer clear of anyone promising to unite the country!

  17. Steve Adams Says:

    No offense taken Trent. And fear not, nity is not gathering around the flag to sing Kum Ba Yah or give up our individuality. It is motiviating the grassroots, the individuals, to work and vote for independents instead of pulling a R or D without thought.


  18. Steve Adams Says:

    nity=unity. :)

  19. Trent Hill Says:

    Adams, Hargis—
    Do either of you expect Ballot access anywhere?

  20. globalist_elitist Says:

    “President” Adams - Party power brokers? Party financiers? Apparently you’re not that familiar with third parites. There aren’t any of either. Party line? Your ideas already fit nicely within the moderate-Republican/ conservative-Democrat “party line.” What exactly are people supposed to get excited about? What new ideas, new perspectives, etc. are you bringing to the public debate? I’ve examined your web site and all I see is tired, lame, and discredited “ideas,” or else things that major-party candidates already stand for.

    Furthermore, you don’t seem to even understand how government works. You have presidential platform planks like “eliminate the electoral college.” This is not something even remotely within the scope of the presidency; even an imperial presidency like that of George W. Bush. Elmininating the EC would require a constitutional amendment that would never pass, and do you know what the president’s role in that procedure is? Nothing.

    In addition, your “platform” calls for two more constitutional amendments. One to promote theocracy and another designed to control and kill the economy. Are you “running” for president or dictator? In the case of the former, you have no role in the amendment process, and in the case of hte latter, the amendmens are uncessary. “America is in crisis” - thank God we have President Adams to save us! On the bright side, you wouldn’t have to work too hard to be the best President Adams we’ve ever had.

  21. globalist_elitist Says:

    Now on to Hargis. He says, “Americans deserve to be treated as any corporation would treat it’s investors, and deserve the right to be informed about government spending.”

    So Americans deserve to be treated as any corporation? That doesn’t make sense. Oh. I see. “Americans deserve to be treated as any corporation would treat it is investors.” The sentence still makes no sense. I know what you mean, but you should get a semi-literate chimp to help you with your web site.

    Secondly, you clearly don’t know how corporations treat their investors. All data supplied to investors is supplied to everyone. You can’t find out exactly how much a corporation is spending on what. Financial transparency of the government is greater than that of a corporation. So your entire point is baseless. Go to Yahoo! Finance. That’s all you can get. The government supplies a lot more data than that.

  22. Steve Adams Says:

    Trent, yes, in every state possible. Some states require only money, others signatures. Every state is different. And yes, I realize this is a large hurdle.

    GE, third parties have party lines just like the big two. I’ve talked to several and they have their platforms that must be toed. And I get requests for money from several as well. They are not immune from the corruption of money and power. My views may fall among several labels, but my allegiance does not.

    I offer no party association, representing the people directly; a balanced budget, limited federal government, and smart taxation. No party offers that.

    I know abolishing the electoral college would take a Constitutional amendment. If you read my prologue to the issues, I plainly state that my views are to tell you who I am, not that every issue is under the control of the president. Theocracy? Never. I’m not sure who’s site you were reading there.


  23. Trent Hill Says:


    and how many states do you expect to be on the ballot on?
    The Reform Party is on 5. Im doubting you can surpass them.

    Oh,and as for the “no party offers that”. Don’t be so arrogant. “A balanced budget, limited federal government, and smart taxation”
    Sounds like either the CP or the LP to me.
    No(or very little) taxation is smart taxation.

  24. Steve Adams Says:

    Trent, no crystal ball here. Like I said, every one I can. It will depend on the number of people who catch the vision for what I’m trying to do.

    No arrogance intended. You missed the “no party association, representing the people directly” which any party, by definition, cannot promise.

    I do not doubt there are good people in the two major parties or in some third parties, but for job security, their party will come before the rest of us.


  25. Trent Hill Says:

    How is a party less likely to represent the views of the voter?

    And I didn’t ask you to forsee the future Adams, I asked you how many states you THOUGHT you would get ballot-access in? What is your realistic goal?

  26. globalist_elitist Says:

    Answer: Not enough to be elected, that’s for sure. Then again, these delusionals probably think that they can throw the election to the House, whereby they will be elected as Congress experiences a miraculous epiphany.

  27. Bob W. Hargis Says:

    No offense was taken whatsoever.

  28. Steve Adams Says:


    Politicians of a party must toe the party line or lose support on key issues, important subcommittee positions, party funding for reelection, and party endorsements. Recent example is Joe Lieberman.

    I’m not trying to be evasive here. I have a goal to win enough electoral votes to win the election. I am not in this to educate the public, to make a name for myself, or to be a spoiler. Whether the states come by ballot access or write-in, I have no way of knowing at this point.


  29. globalist_elitist Says:

    “I have a goal to win enough electoral votes to win the election.”

    Okay, now we know that the guy is insane. Don’t be suprised if he shoots up a college campus, or if we find human body parts in his fridge, etc.

  30. Trent Hill Says: is Joe Liberman an example?

    His party screwed him, so he took the seat for himself, registering as an Independent Democrat, and is often scaring them by threatening to uncaucus, or even caucus across the aisle.

    Adams…im telling you now—You won’t get enough Ballot-access to win the electoral college. The Green Party has trouble doing that.

  31. globalist_elitist Says:

    Don’t bother trying to reason with President Cho. He’s not of thise world. His mind occupies the realm of Gene Chapman, Archangel Michael Jesus, Randy Crow, and Jonathan Starkey.

  32. Steve Adams Says:


    Sen. Lieberman is an example of your party abandoning you when you don’t toe 100% of their line. Look at Lieberman’s record and you will see a staunch Democrat before they abandoned him.


  33. globalist_elitist Says:

    Adams - You are a true idiot. The Democratic Party supported Lieberman until he lost the primary. At that point, who were they supposed to support? The inside Washington man, or the choice of the voters? You seem to think they should have supported the former. I guess you’re just an inside-the-beltway eltitist too. No, you’re just an idiot who doesn’t know your ass from that hole in your face under your nose.

  34. Dwain Mejia Says:

    thiolacetic porphyrogenitus exiguously reconsignment antihemorrhagic photomicrography subcylindric sinker
    Brooklyn Local News: Topix

Leave a Reply