Who appeals to INDEPENDENTS for president right now?

[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?

I’m not a one-issue voter, unlike you.

It’s not one issue. It’s a litmus test for being bought and sold, pro war, anti American, and an all around liar

It's not my issue. Stop trying to convince everyone else to vote according to your obsession.

Dp
Times up

Sorry, what?

[Anonymous]

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.

If you can't find a single moderate in either party, I think the issue is you, not American politics. You'd have to define what you really mean by "moderate".

Any person that I throw out will be immediately critiqued by you as "not moderate enough" on whatever issue is important to YOU. For instance, I would vote for Adam Kinzinger or Marco Rubio. I would love for a (younger) Joe Manchin or Susan Collins to run. But I'm sure you'll pipe up with your objections, which I'm not at all interested in.

Why do you care what I think? You said there weren’t any moderates that appealed to you, and then named four people that you’d vote for.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

What about Geoff Duncan of Georgia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Idk. I’m an independent now after being a Dem and I will vote for candidates who aren’t tainted by big money and AIPAC

I like AOC
I like Kelly

Kelly is an AIPAC shill. Not happening.

[Anonymous]

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

He is the opposite of level headed. When I see Fetterman, I see John Steinbeck’s Lenny Small “Of Mice and Men””

[Anonymous]

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

DP. Agree with this. Think she’s well-intentioned and bright but naive. Also fear that the extreme left would capture her administration.

Hard no for me.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

He is the opposite of level headed. When I see Fetterman, I see John Steinbeck’s Lenny Small “Of Mice and Men””

I brought up Fetterman not as a potential candidate but only as an example of a politician who can lunch with someone on the other side. Heck, even RBG could do that. If someone in office cannot step out of their echo chamber to do that on the regular, they are no supporter of the American people and have no business in politics.

Debate is healthy but not when you refuse to agree just because it might help the other team. Forgot about the team and think of the people.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

DP.

More specifically, I think most independents like AOC but despise the far left. Her prior association with the DSA would sink her.

[Anonymous]

Pauly Shore

[Anonymous]

Oh cool. A thread for all the “independents” to talk about all the dems they like for president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh cool. A thread for all the “independents” to talk about all the dems they like for president.

You missed the Rubio mention.

I am an independent who would absolutely consider voting “traditional” R (think Romney), but no way am I voting MAGA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh cool. A thread for all the “independents” to talk about all the dems they like for president.

Back in the day, I would have said a Clinton-Romney ticket would be good. Who would make a good pairing today?