I agree with a person on the other side

Jaw

Jaw

It's OVER 5,000!
Thanks to Twitter it has become too easy to find crazies on the other side of the political spectrum saying crazy things. I think it would be more entertaining to find things they say that we agree with.

I'll start with Elissa Slotkin, the reasonable Democrat congresswoman from Michigan.

[tw]1455577167644053505[/tw]
 
I think you'll find plenty of people on both sides who say things you agree with and don't agree with.

I think when you see the rare honest politician it's even more of a draw. It's why people draw to Bernie or Amash. They don't tend to sway their opinions a whole lot even when they're unpopular. Look at the Iraq War, I give Lincoln Chafee all kinds of credit for standing up against the entirety of his party.

Unlike say someone like Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden who make any vote based on what keeps them in office.
 
zitothebrave said:
I think you'll find plenty of people on both sides who say things you agree with and don't agree with.

I think when you see the rare honest politician it's even more of a draw. It's why people draw to Bernie or Amash. They don't tend to sway their opinions a whole lot even when they're unpopular. Look at the Iraq War, I give Lincoln Chafee all kinds of credit for standing up against the entirety of his party.

Unlike say someone like Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden who make any vote based on what keeps them in office.
Click to expand...

Agree totally. I agree with those here who want a legitimate 3rd party, one that truly has a chance to win elections. I would suggest we called it the Common Sense Party, so both some Repubs and some Dems could leave their cesspools and join it but to be honest I'm not sure we could fill up an entire party if the requirement was to prove they had common sense. lol
 
Oklahomahawk said:
Agree totally. I agree with those here who want a legitimate 3rd party, one that truly has a chance to win elections. I would suggest we called it the Common Sense Party, so both some Repubs and some Dems could leave their cesspools and join it but to be honest I'm not sure we could fill up an entire party if the requirement was to prove they had common sense. lol
Click to expand...

What most people forget is neither the democrats or republicans generally care about the people. They care about serving their wealthy benefactors. Traditionally for Dems it was Wall Street and now Silicon Valley. For Republicans is usually older money type of systems. Factory farms, Bankers, etc.

Both only care about the rich but go about it differently. Dems always say tax the rich, but they never say tax the stock market. And it's big money for them. THe top 5 donors in 2020 donated almost 500M dollars to various PACs and campaigns. Now what purpose would Sheldon Adelson, Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, the Uihleins, and Kenneth Griffin have to do that? Because their interests protect them. As long as money is in politics, politicians won't care about you.
 
Jaw said:
Thanks to Twitter it has become too easy to find crazies on the other side of the political spectrum saying crazy things. I think it would be more entertaining to find things they say that we agree with.

I'll start with Elissa Slotkin, the reasonable Democrat congresswoman from Michigan.

[tw]1455577167644053505[/tw]
Click to expand...

I'd vote for a constitutional amendment that put restrictions on election finance. I think there's a good argument to be made that each candidate should get a set amount of public money for their campaign and that's all that's allowed to be spent on campaigns. Completely cut the strings big money has on federal officials.
 
zitothebrave said:
What most people forget is neither the democrats or republicans generally care about the people. They care about serving their wealthy benefactors. Traditionally for Dems it was Wall Street and now Silicon Valley. For Republicans is usually older money type of systems. Factory farms, Bankers, etc.

Both only care about the rich but go about it differently. Dems always say tax the rich, but they never say tax the stock market. And it's big money for them. THe top 5 donors in 2020 donated almost 500M dollars to various PACs and campaigns. Now what purpose would Sheldon Adelson, Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, the Uihleins, and Kenneth Griffin have to do that? Because their interests protect them. As long as money is in politics, politicians won't care about you.
Click to expand...

100% agree.
 
The damn is breaking. The remaining moderate Democrats are speaking out against what we all know is insanity.
 
thethe said:
The damn is breaking. The remaining moderate Democrats are speaking out against what we all know is insanity.
Click to expand...

And Nancy looks to be retiring. I don't like her, but there's no denying that she's been good at cat herding the different interests on the D side of the House. The succession will be interesting. If someone from either the Progressive or Moderate wings takes her place, the other side is liable to revolt.
 
Oklahomahawk said:
Agree totally. I agree with those here who want a legitimate 3rd party, one that truly has a chance to win elections. I would suggest we called it the Common Sense Party, so both some Repubs and some Dems could leave their cesspools and join it but to be honest I'm not sure we could fill up an entire party if the requirement was to prove they had common sense. lol
Click to expand...

I've wished for a third party for a while, but I think going from 2 to 4 is more likely. Both parties are held hostage by the other now, which ever splits first is doomed. A drift to 4 works. Progressives-Liberals-Conservatives-Populists.

I think it's already happening. The split in the Democrats has been there for a while, and Trump has exposed the one in the Republicans. Nancy leaving now while there is so much dissent in her party could be the catalyst.
 
Traditional republicans have no support.

So happy they are about to crash and burn.

All the anti populists are retiring.
 
Jaw said:
I've wished for a third party for a while, but I think going from 2 to 4 is more likely. Both parties are held hostage by the other now, which ever splits first is doomed. A drift to 4 works. Progressives-Liberals-Conservatives-Populists.

I think it's already happening. The split in the Democrats has been there for a while, and Trump has exposed the one in the Republicans. Nancy leaving now while there is so much dissent in her party could be the catalyst.
Click to expand...

I think you're right about the Dems. Nancy, as unpopular as she is in many parts of the country is the main zip tie holding the Dems together. Once that falls apart the reasonable Dems will probably want a change without the "loony left". I think the same thing will happen to the Repubs once Trump is really finally out of the picture (though it'll probably take his death to make that happen). The Trumpian Repubs have sold out the rest of the conservatives and once their fuhrer is gone they'll be seen for what they are, ie the "loony right". I suppose it's possible that non crazy conservatives and non crazy Dems could possibly agree on enough issues to form some sort of party. Personally I think both the Dems and the Conservatives have some good ideas, it's just that neither side has the patent on good ideas. I think we've always been stronger when we have 2 healthy parties rather than the 2 quasi-cesspools we have today.

Also, when those on the religious right finally figure out that the Repub party overall doesn't give 2 ****s about abortion, except to use it as a tool to mobilize their base to vote and contribute the Repubs will probably shatter like a crystal wine goblet dropped from the top of the Empire State Building.
 
Oklahomahawk said:
I think you're right about the Dems. Nancy, as unpopular as she is in many parts of the country is the main zip tie holding the Dems together. Once that falls apart the reasonable Dems will probably want a change without the "loony left". I think the same thing will happen to the Repubs once Trump is really finally out of the picture (though it'll probably take his death to make that happen). The Trumpian Repubs have sold out the rest of the conservatives and once their fuhrer is gone they'll be seen for what they are, ie the "loony right". I suppose it's possible that non crazy conservatives and non crazy Dems could possibly agree on enough issues to form some sort of party. Personally I think both the Dems and the Conservatives have some good ideas, it's just that neither side has the patent on good ideas. I think we've always been stronger when we have 2 healthy parties rather than the 2 quasi-cesspools we have today.

Also, when those on the religious right finally figure out that the Repub party overall doesn't give 2 ****s about abortion, except to use it as a tool to mobilize their base to vote and contribute the Repubs will probably shatter like a crystal wine goblet dropped from the top of the Empire State Building.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHA - you think the 'Trumpian' republicans sold out the conservatives? What an awful take.

Traditional 'Con-Inc' has sold out their voters at every turn. They will be irrelevant moving forward.
 
I know a few in this forum who will not be posting on this thread just based on what their perceived principals are or the internet points it would cost them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
She says in an earlier tweet that the Chinese embassy called her and told her to cancel her visit to Taiwan.

[tw]1465686849880571906[/tw]


Every tweet after his one is about the high school shooting in her state. None, zero, were political.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top