Who are the most bipartisan politicians at the national level? Both in how they vote and socialize.

[Anonymous]

Can they listen to, debate with, and hang out with someone with opposing views? I’m thinking of RBG and Scalia being able to tussle about legal/political matters yet be friends who bonded over opera(?). I would like to hear more about people like that. Those are people I want leading us. Not people who are digging deeper trenches on each side of the aisle.

[Anonymous]

I guess no one?

[Anonymous]

The days of Reagan and Tip O’Neill are long gone.

Even John McCain couldn’t survive politically today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can they listen to, debate with, and hang out with someone with opposing views? I’m thinking of RBG and Scalia being able to tussle about legal/political matters yet be friends who bonded over opera(?). I would like to hear more about people like that. Those are people I want leading us. Not people who are digging deeper trenches on each side of the aisle.

I’m uninterested in bipartisanship. There’s almost nothing we can agree on. I would be interested in amicably dividing the country into two self-governing halves in order to avoid civil war.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can they listen to, debate with, and hang out with someone with opposing views? I’m thinking of RBG and Scalia being able to tussle about legal/political matters yet be friends who bonded over opera(?). I would like to hear more about people like that. Those are people I want leading us. Not people who are digging deeper trenches on each side of the aisle.

I’m uninterested in bipartisanship. There’s almost nothing we can agree on. I would be interested in amicably dividing the country into two self-governing halves in order to avoid civil war.

This again...how would it be amicable? Nearly every state has blue areas and red areas. There would be dozens or hundreds of armed groups that would try to take advantage of the instability.

[Anonymous]

I don’t know about now, but in the recent past, several women in the Senate have been able to work together to get things done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know about now, but in the recent past, several women in the Senate have been able to work together to get things done.

Examples?

Murkowski tries to be above partisanship, or pretends to be, but most recently she voted for the BBB and then said on the record "I don't like this bill".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know about now, but in the recent past, several women in the Senate have been able to work together to get things done.

Examples, of who and what, because I’m not seeing anything of the sorts.

[Anonymous]

I understand bipartisanship may be a dirty word to some these days, but it is inconceivable that there is no one who socializes with the other side. If nothing else, seeing things from Tyne other side can help you find your own weak spots. You can’t know the other side unless you engage with the other side.

If RGB could do it, so can others.

[Anonymous]

Massie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can they listen to, debate with, and hang out with someone with opposing views? I’m thinking of RBG and Scalia being able to tussle about legal/political matters yet be friends who bonded over opera(?). I would like to hear more about people like that. Those are people I want leading us. Not people who are digging deeper trenches on each side of the aisle.

I’m uninterested in bipartisanship. There’s almost nothing we can agree on. I would be interested in amicably dividing the country into two self-governing halves in order to avoid civil war.

Okay so which "half" are you going to be on? On one side is the American people and on the other side you have the wealthy financial backers of our two awful major political parties. I'm with the American people. We strongly outnumber the political mega-donors but their wealth makes them more powerful. It's a binary choice. Which side are you on? Pick one. I'd advise you to be with the American people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can they listen to, debate with, and hang out with someone with opposing views? I’m thinking of RBG and Scalia being able to tussle about legal/political matters yet be friends who bonded over opera(?). I would like to hear more about people like that. Those are people I want leading us. Not people who are digging deeper trenches on each side of the aisle.

I’m uninterested in bipartisanship. There’s almost nothing we can agree on. I would be interested in amicably dividing the country into two self-governing halves in order to avoid civil war.

This again...how would it be amicable? Nearly every state has blue areas and red areas. There would be dozens or hundreds of armed groups that would try to take advantage of the instability.

Separate the states and the people will follow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can they listen to, debate with, and hang out with someone with opposing views? I’m thinking of RBG and Scalia being able to tussle about legal/political matters yet be friends who bonded over opera(?). I would like to hear more about people like that. Those are people I want leading us. Not people who are digging deeper trenches on each side of the aisle.

I’m uninterested in bipartisanship. There’s almost nothing we can agree on. I would be interested in amicably dividing the country into two self-governing halves in order to avoid civil war.

This again...how would it be amicable? Nearly every state has blue areas and red areas. There would be dozens or hundreds of armed groups that would try to take advantage of the instability.

Separate the states and the people will follow.

The regular American people would be in 49 of the 50 states and the ultra-wealthy mega-donors controlling our two political parties would be in, let me guess, Hawaii? Is this the split you want? You don't see any way for the American people to retake control of their Federal Government without shipping the toxicity out to Hawaii?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can they listen to, debate with, and hang out with someone with opposing views? I’m thinking of RBG and Scalia being able to tussle about legal/political matters yet be friends who bonded over opera(?). I would like to hear more about people like that. Those are people I want leading us. Not people who are digging deeper trenches on each side of the aisle.

I’m uninterested in bipartisanship. There’s almost nothing we can agree on. I would be interested in amicably dividing the country into two self-governing halves in order to avoid civil war.

This again...how would it be amicable? Nearly every state has blue areas and red areas. There would be dozens or hundreds of armed groups that would try to take advantage of the instability.

Separate the states and the people will follow.

The regular American people would be in 49 of the 50 states and the ultra-wealthy mega-donors controlling our two political parties would be in, let me guess, Hawaii? Is this the split you want? You don't see any way for the American people to retake control of their Federal Government without shipping the toxicity out to Hawaii?

Mars. The correct answer is Mars🛸

[Anonymous]

Brian Fitzpatrick