Who appeals to INDEPENDENTS for president right now?

[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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m an independent. I want to see a legit change candidate — but one whose idea of change involves a laser focus on what helps ordinary people.

I know people will flip but what you describe already exists and has proven themselves capable and moral... AOC.

She identifies as a democratic socialist, which is by definition progressive. I do not believe progressive approaches work because they are a reverse form of trumpism — a “I want what I want now so tear everything down for me to make it happen.” Incremental steps are needed to get long-term buy-in. Progressives hate that.

American progressives are to the left of European progressives on social and immigration issues. While they may be perceived as better than trump or even moderate Democrats on the international front, they are naive and therefore dangerous. Freedom is not free, so simply gutting the military is not a winning strategy. (Going to war like trump has done is also not winning.) Consider also how AOC handled questions about Venezuela and Taiwan. So nope, nope, nope on AOC.

-OP

lol you have no clue.

You think most independents want AOC? If so, you are the one who is clueless.

She is strongly anti Israel and wants billionaires to be held to account. That is what independents are looking for in a candidate. Look at Trump. He is far more naive and much more leftist with his tariffs, planned economy, taking equity shares in private companies, farm subsidies, oil subsidies, etc.

It is you who are clueless.

DP. I’m an independent and those are def NOT my top issues.

Restoration of American institutions and rule of law #1.

Marginalizing the extreme left and extreme right #2.

Curious what you think an ‘extreme left’ position is?

DP. Trans and Immigration sunk the Democrats in 2024. The perception of so many illegals getting more than our own citizens. I actually know how many of the fraud issues happened. Federal money controlled and doled out by the states, and in some cases there were states that didn't verify the stipulated accreditations in order to provide money to its immigrant populations that they want/need.

I believe this is why so many voters went Trump. The feeling that Dems have been disingenuous about saying that the GOP doesn't care about the American poor, when the dems only "seem" to care about the immigrant poor. Both sides have been captured by the extremes in their parties. Hence, many of us wanting an Independent.

[Anonymous]

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.

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

Dp. No horse in this race but you should know using this phrase is seriously cringe. It had a moment several years back with Succession and is now really embarrassing to use

[Anonymous]

Scoop: DeSantis "begging" Trump for prime role in administration

https://www.axios.com/2026/04/21/desantis-trump-administration-attorney-general

Anonymous wrote:

[Anonymous]

Anyone voting independent is not serious.

[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.

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

Dp. No horse in this race but you should know using this phrase is seriously cringe. It had a moment several years back with Succession and is now really embarrassing to use

Says the person using "seriously cringe."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Common sense, Bernie Sanders popularity and noise made in the 2016 and 2020 primaries without the support of mega donors and the Dem establishment and Trump's 2016 victory while campaigning with a populist message. Paying attention to what is happening and what has happened combined with common sense is citation for some of us.

[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.

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

Dp. No horse in this race but you should know using this phrase is seriously cringe. It had a moment several years back with Succession and is now really embarrassing to use

Says the person using "seriously cringe."

You can try to deflect if you want. But you’re embarrassing yourself and your troll peers. Part of your job is to stay current on American lingo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m an independent. I want to see a legit change candidate — but one whose idea of change involves a laser focus on what helps ordinary people.

I know people will flip but what you describe already exists and has proven themselves capable and moral... AOC.

She identifies as a democratic socialist, which is by definition progressive. I do not believe progressive approaches work because they are a reverse form of trumpism — a “I want what I want now so tear everything down for me to make it happen.” Incremental steps are needed to get long-term buy-in. Progressives hate that.

American progressives are to the left of European progressives on social and immigration issues. While they may be perceived as better than trump or even moderate Democrats on the international front, they are naive and therefore dangerous. Freedom is not free, so simply gutting the military is not a winning strategy. (Going to war like trump has done is also not winning.) Consider also how AOC handled questions about Venezuela and Taiwan. So nope, nope, nope on AOC.

-OP

lol you have no clue.

You think most independents want AOC? If so, you are the one who is clueless.

She is strongly anti Israel and wants billionaires to be held to account. That is what independents are looking for in a candidate. Look at Trump. He is far more naive and much more leftist with his tariffs, planned economy, taking equity shares in private companies, farm subsidies, oil subsidies, etc.

It is you who are clueless.

DP. I’m an independent and those are def NOT my top issues.

Restoration of American institutions and rule of law #1.

Marginalizing the extreme left and extreme right #2.

Curious what you think an ‘extreme left’ position is?

DP. Trans and Immigration sunk the Democrats in 2024. The perception of so many illegals getting more than our own citizens. I actually know how many of the fraud issues happened. Federal money controlled and doled out by the states, and in some cases there were states that didn't verify the stipulated accreditations in order to provide money to its immigrant populations that they want/need.

I believe this is why so many voters went Trump. The feeling that Dems have been disingenuous about saying that the GOP doesn't care about the American poor, when the dems only "seem" to care about the immigrant poor. Both sides have been captured by the extremes in their parties. Hence, many of us wanting an Independent.

Ok I hear this. I don’t totally disagree. I’ll admit that I found Harris disappointing even though I voted for her. The ‘nothing different’ comment, it seemed like her grand idea for helping regular people was trying to prevent price gouging - such a tiny piece of the puzzle- and then of course throwing Biden under the bus on her glam book tour while the country she says she wants to lead is burning.

I will not vote for her or anyone like her. Hope the Dems listen this time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m an independent. I want to see a legit change candidate — but one whose idea of change involves a laser focus on what helps ordinary people.

I know people will flip but what you describe already exists and has proven themselves capable and moral... AOC.

She identifies as a democratic socialist, which is by definition progressive. I do not believe progressive approaches work because they are a reverse form of trumpism — a “I want what I want now so tear everything down for me to make it happen.” Incremental steps are needed to get long-term buy-in. Progressives hate that.

American progressives are to the left of European progressives on social and immigration issues. While they may be perceived as better than trump or even moderate Democrats on the international front, they are naive and therefore dangerous. Freedom is not free, so simply gutting the military is not a winning strategy. (Going to war like trump has done is also not winning.) Consider also how AOC handled questions about Venezuela and Taiwan. So nope, nope, nope on AOC.

-OP

lol you have no clue.

You think most independents want AOC? If so, you are the one who is clueless.

She is strongly anti Israel and wants billionaires to be held to account. That is what independents are looking for in a candidate. Look at Trump. He is far more naive and much more leftist with his tariffs, planned economy, taking equity shares in private companies, farm subsidies, oil subsidies, etc.

It is you who are clueless.

DP. I’m an independent and those are def NOT my top issues.

Restoration of American institutions and rule of law #1.

Marginalizing the extreme left and extreme right #2.

Curious what you think an ‘extreme left’ position is?

DP. Trans and Immigration sunk the Democrats in 2024. The perception of so many illegals getting more than our own citizens. I actually know how many of the fraud issues happened. Federal money controlled and doled out by the states, and in some cases there were states that didn't verify the stipulated accreditations in order to provide money to its immigrant populations that they want/need.

I believe this is why so many voters went Trump. The feeling that Dems have been disingenuous about saying that the GOP doesn't care about the American poor, when the dems only "seem" to care about the immigrant poor. Both sides have been captured by the extremes in their parties. Hence, many of us wanting an Independent.

Ok I hear this. I don’t totally disagree. I’ll admit that I found Harris disappointing even though I voted for her. The ‘nothing different’ comment, it seemed like her grand idea for helping regular people was trying to prevent price gouging - such a tiny piece of the puzzle- and then of course throwing Biden under the bus on her glam book tour while the country she says she wants to lead is burning.

I will not vote for her or anyone like her. Hope the Dems listen this time.

You hope the dems listen? You think the elite dems give a hot damn about you or your views?

To the elite dems you are one of the unwashed little people to be directed, controlled, and moved about the chess board.

No they are not “listening” to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m an independent. I want to see a legit change candidate — but one whose idea of change involves a laser focus on what helps ordinary people.

I know people will flip but what you describe already exists and has proven themselves capable and moral... AOC.

She identifies as a democratic socialist, which is by definition progressive. I do not believe progressive approaches work because they are a reverse form of trumpism — a “I want what I want now so tear everything down for me to make it happen.” Incremental steps are needed to get long-term buy-in. Progressives hate that.

American progressives are to the left of European progressives on social and immigration issues. While they may be perceived as better than trump or even moderate Democrats on the international front, they are naive and therefore dangerous. Freedom is not free, so simply gutting the military is not a winning strategy. (Going to war like trump has done is also not winning.) Consider also how AOC handled questions about Venezuela and Taiwan. So nope, nope, nope on AOC.

-OP

lol you have no clue.

You think most independents want AOC? If so, you are the one who is clueless.

She is strongly anti Israel and wants billionaires to be held to account. That is what independents are looking for in a candidate. Look at Trump. He is far more naive and much more leftist with his tariffs, planned economy, taking equity shares in private companies, farm subsidies, oil subsidies, etc.

It is you who are clueless.

DP. I’m an independent and those are def NOT my top issues.

Restoration of American institutions and rule of law #1.

Marginalizing the extreme left and extreme right #2.

Curious what you think an ‘extreme left’ position is?

DP. Trans and Immigration sunk the Democrats in 2024. The perception of so many illegals getting more than our own citizens. I actually know how many of the fraud issues happened. Federal money controlled and doled out by the states, and in some cases there were states that didn't verify the stipulated accreditations in order to provide money to its immigrant populations that they want/need.

I believe this is why so many voters went Trump. The feeling that Dems have been disingenuous about saying that the GOP doesn't care about the American poor, when the dems only "seem" to care about the immigrant poor. Both sides have been captured by the extremes in their parties. Hence, many of us wanting an Independent.

Ok I hear this. I don’t totally disagree. I’ll admit that I found Harris disappointing even though I voted for her. The ‘nothing different’ comment, it seemed like her grand idea for helping regular people was trying to prevent price gouging - such a tiny piece of the puzzle- and then of course throwing Biden under the bus on her glam book tour while the country she says she wants to lead is burning.

I will not vote for her or anyone like her. Hope the Dems listen this time.

You hope the dems listen? You think the elite dems give a hot damn about you or your views?

To the elite dems you are one of the unwashed little people to be directed, controlled, and moved about the chess board.

No they are not “listening” to you.

There are maybe a handful of GOP and Dem politicians out there that don't accept donations from mega-donors. 98% of them do and they are beholden to those wealthy entities and therefore the American citizen priorities are put on the back burner. This isn't a party specific dynamic. GOP politicians are just as likely to be corrupt as Dem politicians and as a whole, our Congress is not "listening" to us.