Who appeals to INDEPENDENTS for president right now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AOC is certainly no airhead. Anyone who has watched her in committee hearings knows that. She's very sharp.

But I don't think AOC as a presidential candidate is likely to win Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada and the other battleground states. I'd rather see her take Chuck Schumer's seat as Senator of New York.

AOC would kill it in Midwestern swing states with her populist messaging just like Sanders did with much less funding than his opponents. Where AOC isn't favored is with the wealthy party financiers and until she sells out to them, she will seriously compete for nothing more than Senate and House seats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I consider myself a moderate and will only be voting for a moderate. Period. Sadly, no one comes to mind.

What moderates aren’t taken by aipac?

DP. AIPAC isn’t one of my top 20 issues.

What are your top 10?

Mine top issue is tribalism. I want someone who puts people over party. I’m tired over people sayinf we can’t do or talk about x that is right for people but will help the other team then we must oppose it.

If the candidate votes almost exclusively along party lines (as most do), then they are dubious and need to be watched closely. And I don’t want the hear but Trump. Many of the people in office pre-dated trump or at least Trump 2.0. I want people who are honestly working for us not a party.

I’m op and pp. Are there any politicians these days who have lunch or dinner or otherwise socialize with someone from the opposite party any more? If I recall correctly, Fetterman got roasted for doing this (can’t remember if there was more to the story).

For me, I want to see more people in Congress doing this. Maybe they do but it’s kept quiet these days. We should be working together not apart.

Ok, but I absolutely would not trust any candidate that was socializing with maga republicans. You cannot legitimize this lunacy.

Why couldn’t you trust that person? Shouldn’t they be gathering info from the horse’s mouth rather than from secondhand info? Shouldn’t they then use that info to refine their own arguments?

Not talking with the other side is childish. This along with elitism got us MAGA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We need to win in 2028, and that means being pragmatic.

Nobody from inside this insanely corrupt administration, no matter how uncomfortable they look sitting on the sofa in the Oval.

Nobody who has provided cover for this administration or stayed silent in the face of the corruption - which rules out pretty much every establishment Republican.

If this nation wouldn't elect Hillary or Kamala, it's not electing AOC either. We need a pragmatic candidate who is not deeply in bed with AIPAC.

Who is this WE you speak of? Are you a Democrat or a blue no matter who supporter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a Bashear/Buttigeig ticket would be great. And successful.

Do you think they have enough teeth to hold the line against extreme / fringe issues? They need to be assertive and fearless, so they don’t get swept in the partisan mire.

and what are the extreme/fringe issues according to you?

NP. The issues that caused progressives to lose to Trump. We all know what they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fetterman has proven to be level headed and in touch with how the majority of Americans feel on key issues.

Agreed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I consider myself a moderate and will only be voting for a moderate. Period. Sadly, no one comes to mind.

What moderates aren’t taken by aipac?

DP. AIPAC isn’t one of my top 20 issues.

What are your top 10?

Mine top issue is tribalism. I want someone who puts people over party. I’m tired over people sayinf we can’t do or talk about x that is right for people but will help the other team then we must oppose it.

If the candidate votes almost exclusively along party lines (as most do), then they are dubious and need to be watched closely. And I don’t want the hear but Trump. Many of the people in office pre-dated trump or at least Trump 2.0. I want people who are honestly working for us not a party.

I’m op and pp. Are there any politicians these days who have lunch or dinner or otherwise socialize with someone from the opposite party any more? If I recall correctly, Fetterman got roasted for doing this (can’t remember if there was more to the story).

For me, I want to see more people in Congress doing this. Maybe they do but it’s kept quiet these days. We should be working together not apart.

Ok, but I absolutely would not trust any candidate that was socializing with maga republicans. You cannot legitimize this lunacy.

Why couldn’t you trust that person? Shouldn’t they be gathering info from the horse’s mouth rather than from secondhand info? Shouldn’t they then use that info to refine their own arguments?

Not talking with the other side is childish. This along with elitism got us MAGA.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am an independent and what someone who a) acts like an adult, b) is an actual fiscal conservative and cares about bringing the federal budget back into balance, and c) cares about ending government spying on American citizens.

I won't find anyone like this, sadly.

Well, we know which party will get us into more debt.

Both parties have gotten us into debt. Biden and now Trump. This is why we need to look at Independents. People who can fight against the craziness and irresponsibility on both sides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Graham Platner in Maine and Dan Osborn in Nebraska. I’m not talking about presidential candidates at all, these are Senate candidates, but they have the “vibe” that a lot of independents are going for. Blue collar, scruffy, white guys that appeal to labor and populist on economic issues.

You sure you want a guy with a Nazi tattoo?

+1
And to match his tattoo…

Oh please. This type of propaganda is becoming less effective every time you try to smear someone who is a good person.

This is also why we can’t have nice things.

Really! Did you say exactly the same thing when people insisted Elon Musk made a Nazi salute? I posted this as satire, mocking the morons who insist that anyone waving like that is making a Nazi salute. Were you one of those morons?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We need to win in 2028, and that means being pragmatic.

Nobody from inside this insanely corrupt administration, no matter how uncomfortable they look sitting on the sofa in the Oval.

Nobody who has provided cover for this administration or stayed silent in the face of the corruption - which rules out pretty much every establishment Republican.

If this nation wouldn't elect Hillary or Kamala, it's not electing AOC either. We need a pragmatic candidate who is not deeply in bed with AIPAC.

I love the way you think you dictate who others will vote for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Graham Platner in Maine and Dan Osborn in Nebraska. I’m not talking about presidential candidates at all, these are Senate candidates, but they have the “vibe” that a lot of independents are going for. Blue collar, scruffy, white guys that appeal to labor and populist on economic issues.

You sure you want a guy with a Nazi tattoo?

A guy that admitted he made mistakes in the past and has a lived experience with war and recovery from trauma, and a man who immediately got the tattoo removed once he realized what it symbolized? Sure.

Cool. Now apply this logic to Justice Kavanaugh or any number of Republicans that have been pilloried for things they did and said decades ago that you jumped all over. And I'm a Democrat, by the way.

What?! I don't even know what you are referring to!

Did you watch the same hearings I did? When did Justice Kavanaugh admit he sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford? He absolutely did not.

He admitted that he "liked beer" and that he still "liked beer" where his friends and former roommates said he was a frequent drunk who would get belligerent. He said he never blacked out where his own friends said he became "incoherent" and "passed out."

Kavanaugh is an example of the OPPOSITE of Graham Platner. He refused to admit what most of watching the hearings believed to be true AND he reacted in a forceful, scary, unsupreme court justice kind of way. The only thing he admitted to was regretting that he acted in a cringeworthy way in the hearings!

I actually think Graham Platner is too controversial and am not the PP. But what he is accused of is a totally different level: 1) getting a skull tattoo that supposedly everyone knows is a Nazi symbol. Given that I have a PhD and never in my life knew that was a Nazi symbol, I find it credible. Either way, HE ISN'T a NAZI so there's that. and 2) writing a bunch of inappropriate offensive things that he has apologized for. Words matter, they do. But do not compare that to raping someone!

"Words matter"? Yes, they absolutely do - don't try and diminish his disgusting words. And Kavanaugh neither raped anyone, nor was he accused of rape. Get a grip.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Graham Platner in Maine and Dan Osborn in Nebraska. I’m not talking about presidential candidates at all, these are Senate candidates, but they have the “vibe” that a lot of independents are going for. Blue collar, scruffy, white guys that appeal to labor and populist on economic issues.

You sure you want a guy with a Nazi tattoo?

A guy that admitted he made mistakes in the past and has a lived experience with war and recovery from trauma, and a man who immediately got the tattoo removed once he realized what it symbolized? Sure.

Cool. Now apply this logic to Justice Kavanaugh or any number of Republicans that have been pilloried for things they did and said decades ago that you jumped all over. And I'm a Democrat, by the way.

What?! I don't even know what you are referring to!

Did you watch the same hearings I did? When did Justice Kavanaugh admit he sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford? He absolutely did not.

He admitted that he "liked beer" and that he still "liked beer" where his friends and former roommates said he was a frequent drunk who would get belligerent. He said he never blacked out where his own friends said he became "incoherent" and "passed out."

Kavanaugh is an example of the OPPOSITE of Graham Platner. He refused to admit what most of watching the hearings believed to be true AND he reacted in a forceful, scary, unsupreme court justice kind of way. The only thing he admitted to was regretting that he acted in a cringeworthy way in the hearings!

I actually think Graham Platner is too controversial and am not the PP. But what he is accused of is a totally different level: 1) getting a skull tattoo that supposedly everyone knows is a Nazi symbol. Given that I have a PhD and never in my life knew that was a Nazi symbol, I find it credible. Either way, HE ISN'T a NAZI so there's that. and 2) writing a bunch of inappropriate offensive things that he has apologized for. Words matter, they do. But do not compare that to raping someone!

Platner used the r-word in an interview within the last month. It's very obvious to this nearly 60 year old woman that his apologies are empty and entirely self-serving, and it should be reiterated again and again and again that the apologies only came after he was caught out red handed for having deleted all those reddit posts and tried his best to totally hide from the Maine electorate who he *was* a decade ago - which utter character failing tends to suggest it is who he *IS* still, today. It's also repugnant that he tried to blame his ugly words and thoughts on PTSD, which doesn't cause racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, xenophobia or a general disdain for one's neighbors who Platner called 'all racist and stupid' - the very people he's asking to represent. He's every bit as disgusting as Kavanaugh and I have little doubt - as a woman in this world who was once a girl in this world and for too many years a criminal attorney in this world both defender and prosecutor - that Platner has raped someone in his past, which is undoubtedly from where he developed his disgusting perspective that women who make claims of rape are all liars regretting drunken sex.

And whatever your PhD is in, Platner claims to be a big history buff particularly military history and he has 6 years of college under his belt despite never managing to complete a degree. It's a hard pass on buying that in 20 years he never figured out that he had a Totenkopf tattoo on his chest - until it became a political liability while he's trying to don sheep's clothing and sell himself as a good natured populist.

He wrote on reddit that he was excited to go to the Middle East and kill some brown people. This is not a man of good character, period. Anybody who would say such a thing after his frontal lobe has fully developed has serious character deficiencies.

+ a million

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to win in 2028, and that means being pragmatic.

Nobody from inside this insanely corrupt administration, no matter how uncomfortable they look sitting on the sofa in the Oval.

Nobody who has provided cover for this administration or stayed silent in the face of the corruption - which rules out pretty much every establishment Republican.

If this nation wouldn't elect Hillary or Kamala, it's not electing AOC either. We need a pragmatic candidate who is not deeply in bed with AIPAC.

Says the fruitcake who puts two corporate owned politicians in the same bucket as AOC. You have a lot to learn about politics, my friend. AOC could not be more different politically than Harris or Clinton.

DP. Only an actual fruitcake would claim that AOC could win the presidency. You are not a serious person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to win in 2028, and that means being pragmatic.

Nobody from inside this insanely corrupt administration, no matter how uncomfortable they look sitting on the sofa in the Oval.

Nobody who has provided cover for this administration or stayed silent in the face of the corruption - which rules out pretty much every establishment Republican.

If this nation wouldn't elect Hillary or Kamala, it's not electing AOC either. We need a pragmatic candidate who is not deeply in bed with AIPAC.

Says the fruitcake who puts two corporate owned politicians in the same bucket as AOC. You have a lot to learn about politics, my friend. AOC could not be more different politically than Harris or Clinton.

I'm not a fruitcake, poster. I'm a nearly 60 year old American woman who has a PoliSci degree, a law degree, and decades of experience closely following and working in politics. I doubt very much you know more about how our political system works than I do. And you seem to be massively ignorant of the misogyny that prevails in our society and political system, even though it stares you in the face every single day in the news cycle. The USA is not ready to elect a woman, sad as that is. She could be so far out of the political establishment as to be from Venus, and our sick misogynistic patriarchal strangleheld society WOULD NOT ELECT HER.

Now I'm sure you can imagine what I'm wishing for you and your nastiness right now. Go dial up some porn and do it.

Any one with a PS degree who doesn't understand the extreme political differences between AOC and Harris/Clinton needs to forfeit their PS degree. Try harder.

I understand all about their political differences you foolish ijit. BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THEY ALL HAVE VAGINAS! Wake up and get into reality you moronic child.

DP. I understand what you're saying and agree that there's no way AOC would ever win - but I definitely don't agree that no woman will ever win. The right one absolutely would.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to win in 2028, and that means being pragmatic.

Nobody from inside this insanely corrupt administration, no matter how uncomfortable they look sitting on the sofa in the Oval.

Nobody who has provided cover for this administration or stayed silent in the face of the corruption - which rules out pretty much every establishment Republican.

If this nation wouldn't elect Hillary or Kamala, it's not electing AOC either. We need a pragmatic candidate who is not deeply in bed with AIPAC.

Says the fruitcake who puts two corporate owned politicians in the same bucket as AOC. You have a lot to learn about politics, my friend. AOC could not be more different politically than Harris or Clinton.

I'm not a fruitcake, poster. I'm a nearly 60 year old American woman who has a PoliSci degree, a law degree, and decades of experience closely following and working in politics. I doubt very much you know more about how our political system works than I do. And you seem to be massively ignorant of the misogyny that prevails in our society and political system, even though it stares you in the face every single day in the news cycle. The USA is not ready to elect a woman, sad as that is. She could be so far out of the political establishment as to be from Venus, and our sick misogynistic patriarchal strangleheld society WOULD NOT ELECT HER.

Now I'm sure you can imagine what I'm wishing for you and your nastiness right now. Go dial up some porn and do it.

Dp. Are you the one who also called AOC an airhead? Yeah, you’re likely not any of the things you claim to be. My guess is you are someone who’d like people to believe that AOC is ‘just not electable’. Why? Because she is the most dangerous to you.

DP. Could you just stop your shilling for AOC - or *any* progressive? You sound utterly stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to win in 2028, and that means being pragmatic.

Nobody from inside this insanely corrupt administration, no matter how uncomfortable they look sitting on the sofa in the Oval.

Nobody who has provided cover for this administration or stayed silent in the face of the corruption - which rules out pretty much every establishment Republican.

If this nation wouldn't elect Hillary or Kamala, it's not electing AOC either. We need a pragmatic candidate who is not deeply in bed with AIPAC.

Says the fruitcake who puts two corporate owned politicians in the same bucket as AOC. You have a lot to learn about politics, my friend. AOC could not be more different politically than Harris or Clinton.

I'm not a fruitcake, poster. I'm a nearly 60 year old American woman who has a PoliSci degree, a law degree, and decades of experience closely following and working in politics. I doubt very much you know more about how our political system works than I do. And you seem to be massively ignorant of the misogyny that prevails in our society and political system, even though it stares you in the face every single day in the news cycle. The USA is not ready to elect a woman, sad as that is. She could be so far out of the political establishment as to be from Venus, and our sick misogynistic patriarchal strangleheld society WOULD NOT ELECT HER.

Now I'm sure you can imagine what I'm wishing for you and your nastiness right now. Go dial up some porn and do it.

Dp. Are you the one who also called AOC an airhead? Yeah, you’re likely not any of the things you claim to be. My guess is you are someone who’d like people to believe that AOC is ‘just not electable’. Why? Because she is the most dangerous to you.

AOC is certainly no airhead. In fact, she is one our brightest members in Congress and one of the very few who hasn't sold out to mega-donors. Her populist rhetoric is favored by a vast majority of Americans. Her problem is not electability. Her problem is nomination ability. A major party nomination of a true populist candidate is extraordinarily unlikely anytime soon because the ultra-wealthy entities in control of our political system will fight tooth and nail against the nomination of anyone threatening to close the wealth divide. We've seen how this plays out in recent elections. The money wins and the American people lose.

Citation for the bolded? Thanks.