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.

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.

Who is that? Seriously? So many of them are deeply corrupted. The only way one of them can lose the taint is by asking AOC to be their VP

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP
In trying to marginalize the left and right, people only end up inadvertently end up amplifying them. Key example: trans issues.

This.

Also, AOC pulled in a LOT of MAGA. She is what a lot of people want >> the billionaires to stop screwing all of us.

Bernie and AOC got some pretty big draws doing events in deep red parts of the country. Economic populism resonates.

Good luck with that.

Good luck with your continued shilling for a foreign country.

Good luck with your one issue obsession and crusade. You are beyond tiresome.

You think it’s just me who is obsessed and doesn’t want to see our politics taken over by a foreign country? Trillions spent on their wars while we can’t provide for our own? You went way too far by taking down pro Palestine candidates. Your cause is over. Move on.

Sorry, what? How is a pro-Palestine candidate any different than a pro-Israel candidate? Both are advocating for the governments of a foreign country/entity/territory. You need to take a good look in the mirror and take your own advice - move on.

Hmm it’s pretty obvious how different it is. Jamaal Bowmans pro P position was to call for a cease fire. That is what caused your nasty org to step in and try to destroy him with one or the most expensive campaigns.

It was also a threat, as you very well know.

And no, no one who sees this is a clown. You can troll all you want but it’s over.

How you sleep at night is beyond me. Pure evil.

“My nasty org”? Lady, you have no idea what my beliefs are. Take your sickening obsession with all things Israeli and get help. You desperately need it. You ruin every thread you post on with your vile toxicity.

What vile toxicity is that? Wanting a ceasefire? Caring that I see people living on the street in every major Us city yet we’ve sent trillions to a country that commits genocide, and messes with our elections?

And if you think it’s just one person on here, you are very very wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP
In trying to marginalize the left and right, people only end up inadvertently end up amplifying them. Key example: trans issues.

This.

Also, AOC pulled in a LOT of MAGA. She is what a lot of people want >> the billionaires to stop screwing all of us.

Bernie and AOC got some pretty big draws doing events in deep red parts of the country. Economic populism resonates.

Good luck with that.

Good luck with your continued shilling for a foreign country.

Good luck with your one issue obsession and crusade. You are beyond tiresome.

You think it’s just me who is obsessed and doesn’t want to see our politics taken over by a foreign country? Trillions spent on their wars while we can’t provide for our own? You went way too far by taking down pro Palestine candidates. Your cause is over. Move on.

Sorry, what? How is a pro-Palestine candidate any different than a pro-Israel candidate? Both are advocating for the governments of a foreign country/entity/territory. You need to take a good look in the mirror and take your own advice - move on.

Hmm it’s pretty obvious how different it is. Jamaal Bowmans pro P position was to call for a cease fire. That is what caused your nasty org to step in and try to destroy him with one or the most expensive campaigns.

It was also a threat, as you very well know.

And no, no one who sees this is a clown. You can troll all you want but it’s over.

How you sleep at night is beyond me. Pure evil.

“My nasty org”? Lady, you have no idea what my beliefs are. Take your sickening obsession with all things Israeli and get help. You desperately need it. You ruin every thread you post on with your vile toxicity.

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.

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.

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!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beshar of Ky
Rubio
Kennedy from Louisiana
Shapiro from Penn (but he’s a Jew that served in Israel’s army decades ago so… doubt he’ll win)

Rubio looks like he desperately wants out of the current administration, but feels stuck because otherwise he has no shot at the presidency. I would be willing to hear him out. I don't know enough about Kennedy in Louisiana. I think you are right about Shapiro. Not sure about Beshar from KY. I hear his name a lot but haven't dug into learn more about him.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beshar of Ky
Rubio
Kennedy from Louisiana
Shapiro from Penn (but he’s a Jew that served in Israel’s army decades ago so… doubt he’ll win)

Rubio looks like he desperately wants out of the current administration, but feels stuck because otherwise he has no shot at the presidency. I would be willing to hear him out. I don't know enough about Kennedy in Louisiana. I think you are right about Shapiro. Not sure about Beshar from KY. I hear his name a lot but haven't dug into learn more about him.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Beshar of Ky
Rubio
Kennedy from Louisiana
Shapiro from Penn (but he’s a Jew that served in Israel’s army decades ago so… doubt he’ll win)