Opposing party leaders you'd consider voting for? (1 Viewer)

[Heathen]

If you are a Conservative, would there be any Democrats you'd consider voting for over Trump?
If you are Liberal, would there be a chance someday you'd vote for a Republican if they shared your values, or would you even vote for Trump?

I've had quite a few discussions with Conservatives (nothing too deep, politics is dicey if you want to keep good relationships), and I've found that a few seem to be, oddly enough, interested in some of the more leftist members of the party. The only reason I can conjure is because of their devotion to worker's rights and the like. For instance, a few have really showed an interest in Tulsi Gabbard and even one or two expressed mild interest in Sanders. I've also heard so many say the party is going too left and they'd never consider voting for a Democrat, so it falls all over the spectrum. Just noting a few peculiar instances.

What's your opinion? What would it take if the answer is a resounding 'no'?

I think for me personally it's important to be a voter that is more concerned with issues those representing us are fighting for...so I am not loyal forever to any party. I'd vote for a Republican if they won me over with more issues I agreed with than a Democrat did.

 

[SFIDC3]

I actually like some of Bernie's views on the corporations, but not his solutions. I don't like corporations who have too much power, are given advantages in the tax code, are able to practically write the laws that govern them, and allowing former industry officials to be in charge of the government agencies that regulate themselves.

You must have hated the latest GOP tax policy then, no?

 

[V Chip]

We don't need a link. We have parts of the world where people don't come close to dreaming of a day when gay people can actually get married because they are too busy worrying about being thrown off a roof.

That's a weird position to take: "Since things are worse somewhere else, we should be happy it's not that bad here."

We should work towards the best solutions here and everywhere, but especially here. You know, that whole "America is the shining city on a hill" thing. People around the world see how good things are here (or elsewhere) and strive to change their cities/countries to be like the shining city.

 

[tomwaits]

Con some one tell me where this Tulsi love comes from? Beside being attractive and not wanting 1001 wars?

Among people who are libertarian leaning, Tulsi gets respect for her positions on the failed war on Drugs, but mostly for her stance on the endless wars. She is not great on the wars, but she is the least bad by a huge margin, and this is her #1 issue. While she still wants to fight Al Qaeda all over the world, at least she doesn't want the US to be in Syria, Yemen, or have a war with Iran. So while Sanders gives lip service to getting out of the wars, its not his passion and I think a group of generals could easily pressure him into doing things their way. I think this is less likely the case with Tulsi.

Ending the wars is my #1 issue. The US wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Egypt, Libya, and others have resulted in over 1 million deaths with a huge portion of those children.
I will never understand how people can think Trump saying mean things is in the same galaxy as this.
If you asked the families of the dead if they would rather the US have a president that says racist things about them everyday, or one who destroys their infrastructure, sanctions them into starvation, and blows them apart with drones, I'm pretty sure I know what they would say.
Its not as big a story because these wars had a lot of bi-partisan support, and the media just does not report much on how bad these wars have been.
Tulsi can at least see that the US is fighting on the same side, or at least backing the same side as Al Qaeda in multiple wars and is upset that the politicians/military keep backing the group that killed Americans on 9/11

The one thing you will be attacked for as a politician more than anything else is being anti-war.
Meet the Press is sponsored by Boeing. Why would that be?

Ending the war on drugs is my #2 issue, and I don't do any drugs. Tulsi has been pretty good on this issue as well.

People who say she could switch to an R and be welcomed are delusional.
The R's love their wars (empire and drug wars).
Tulsi has also bought in on the green new deal and is big on other redistribution policies. Do you think the R's would welcome that?

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

Among people who are libertarian leaning, Tulsi gets respect for her positions on the failed war on Drugs, but mostly for her stance on the endless wars. She is not great on the wars, but she is the least bad by a huge margin, and this is her #1 issue. While she still wants to fight Al Qaeda all over the world, at least she doesn't want the US to be in Syria, Yemen, or have a war with Iran. So while Sanders gives lip service to getting out of the wars, its not his passion and I think a group of generals could easily pressure him into doing things their way. I think this is less likely the case with Tulsi.

Ending the wars is my #1 issue. The US wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Egypt, Libya, and others have resulted in over 1 million deaths with a huge portion of those children.
I will never understand how people can think Trump saying mean things is in the same galaxy as this.
If you asked the families of the dead if they would rather the US have a president that says racist things about them everyday, or one who destroys their infrastructure, sanctions them into starvation, and blows them apart with drones, I'm pretty sure I know what they would say.
Its not as big a story because these wars had a lot of bi-partisan support, and the media just does not report much on how bad these wars have been.
Tulsi can at least see that the US is fighting on the same side, or at least backing the same side as Al Qaeda in multiple wars and is upset that the politicians/military keep backing the group that killed Americans on 9/11

The one thing you will be attacked for as a politician more than anything else is being anti-war.
Meet the Press is sponsored by Boeing. Why would that be?

Ending the war on drugs is my #2 issue, and I don't do any drugs. Tulsi has been pretty good on this issue as well.

People who say she could switch to an R and be welcomed are delusional.
The R's love their wars (empire and drug wars).
Tulsi has also bought in on the green new deal and is big on other redistribution policies. Do you think the R's would welcome that?

While impassioned - and I appreciate that - you create an odd strawman
Who is the pro-war/anti-racism person you’re railing against?
You also vaguely imply that trump is pro-racism/anti-war and we all can see that his anti-war stuff was illusory at best

I get the heart of what you’re saying but not the head

 

[tomwaits]

While impassioned - and I appreciate that - you create an odd strawman
Who is the pro-war/anti-racism person you’re railing against?
You also vaguely imply that trump is pro-racism/anti-war and we all can see that his anti-war stuff was illusory at best

I get the heart of what you’re saying but not the head

The main thrust we get from the corporate press is that Trump is so terrible (which he is) and its mostly based on what he says about race/sex but the US military body count is just so much more important, but has much less reporting. We hear the same things from the D candidates.
How is the slaughter not the important issue by huge magnitudes? I don't understand the priorities here.
The only time we see the corp press or the Dems say anything good about Trump is when he's bombing something.

Tulsi seems to have her priorities a little more in order than the rest of the D field.

I am not implying in any way that Trump is anti-war to any meaningful degree. As you correctly state, he had some rhetoric about it that never panned out. He should be tried for war crimes in Yemen and Syria along with Obama (Bush can be tried for crimes in Iraq while we are at it.)

He was absolutely pushed to be more hawkish on Russia due to the BS Russia-gate stuff. Politics was more important to both sides than risking increasing tensions with the other major nuclear power.

 

[coldseat]

The main thrust we get from the corporate press is that Trump is so terrible (which he is) and its mostly based on what he says about race/sex but the US military body count is just so much more important, but has much less reporting. We hear the same things from the D candidates.
How is the slaughter not the important issue by huge magnitudes? I don't understand the priorities here.
The only time we see the corp press or the Dems say anything good about Trump is when he's bombing something.

Tulsi seems to have her priorities a little more in order than the rest of the D field.

I am not implying in any way that Trump is anti-war to any meaningful degree. As you correctly state, he had some rhetoric about it that never panned out. He should be tried for war crimes in Yemen and Syria along with Obama (Bush can be tried for crimes in Iraq while we are at it.)

He was absolutely pushed to be more hawkish on Russia due to the BS Russia-gate stuff. Politics was more important to both sides than risking increasing tensions with the other major nuclear power.

Honestly, it's really hard to decipher what you want out of a president, aside from a total pacifist. Something that I don't think is remotely possible in today's world. Your desire seems to be un-obtainable. By your definition, I think every US president in recent history could be brought up on war crimes (as you've noted).

I'm all for getting out of Yemen and severely limiting involvement with Saudi military/war initiatives. I'm for limiting and reducing US involvement in middle east wars and regional politics in general. But that's doesn't mean we can pull everything back without serious repercussions. We went down that road when Obama tried to pull out of Iraq and Isis formed as a result. But it doesn't seem anything short of that would satisfy you.

No president is going to be perfect in this respect. They're all going to do things we dislike.

 

[tomwaits]

Honestly, it's really hard to decipher what you want out of a president, aside from a total pacifist. Something that I don't think is remotely possible in today's world. Your desire seems to be un-obtainable. By your definition, I think every US president in recent history could be brought up on war crimes (as you've noted).

I'm all for getting out of Yemen and severely limiting involvement with Saudi military/war initiatives. I'm for limiting and reducing US involvement in middle east wars and regional politics in general. But that's doesn't mean we can't pull everything back without serious repercussions. We went down that road when Obama tried to pull out of Iraq and Isis formed as a result. But it doesn't seem anything short of that would satisfy you.

No president is going to be perfect in this respect. They're all going to do things we dislike.

What is our justification for being in the middle East and what are the goals?
Can you even answer that?

 

[coldseat]

What is our justification for being in the middle East and what are the goals?
Can you even answer that?

What's my justification? You want me to got back to the beginning of the US sending troops to the middle east and search out a justification as to why we're there? That's just silly. I'm certainly not proposing any justification for new engagement. I want us to minimize our presence in that region.

Regardless, we're there right now and have a substantial presence in the area. If we were to completely withdraw all of our military from the region, like you seem to suggest, a lot of chaos would follow.

 

[MT15]

We’ve been doing a terrible job of having clear goals in the ME, there’s no doubt about that. Energy independence would go a long way toward us getting out for good, except for the terrorist angle.

We messed up so much that they are not going to just leave us alone if we just leave them alone, that’s the rub.

I want a president who will seriously study the situation and come up with a workable plan to get us out without letting really bad things happen to the people who are left over there. It’s not easy to figure out what should be done.

 

[tomwaits]

What's my justification? You want me to got back to the beginning of the US sending troops to the middle east and search out a justification as to why we're there? That's just silly. I'm certainly not proposing any justification for new engagement. I want us to minimize our presence in that region.

Regardless, we're there right now and have a substantial presence in the area. If we were to completely withdraw all of our military from the region, like you seem to suggest, a lot of chaos would follow.

Its silly to justify why the death machine rolls right?
Or do you want to avoid stating that we started the stupid wars to fight the terrorists that attacked us and now we are fighting on the same side of those same terrorist groups? Iraq we were just lied into. Somehow Pelosi thinks that lying us into war is less of a crime than Trump's stupid Ukraine thing, but that's a different thread.

If we leave it will be a mess? Unlike what the government/military has done while we were there in all of the death and destruction we brought them right?

Iraq has literally told us to leave. Not leaving is occupation. (Its always been occupation, but it is much harder to deny it when the government tells the US military to get out.)
Afghanistan has been a total failure and nobody even knows what the goal is now. Its the longest war in US history. A soldier could have gone to Afghanistan to fight and had a child born while he was there and now that child could be fighting in the same war.

Its sickening to hear politicians say they care about people and then see them treat this slaughter and destruction like it is a minor issue.
How can I think someone really cares about refugees in a holding area if they can't be passionate about us starving children. I see it for the blatant political posturing that it is. Kids separated form their parents is bad, but not near as bad as starving babies or blowing them apart.

 

[coldseat]

Its silly to justify why the death machine rolls right?
Or do you want to avoid stating that we started the stupid wars to fight the terrorists that attacked us and now we are fighting on the same side of those same terrorist groups? Iraq we were just lied into. Somehow Pelosi thinks that lying us into war is less of a crime than Trump's stupid Ukraine thing, but that's a different thread.

If we leave it will be a mess? Unlike what the government/military has done while we were there in all of the death and destruction we brought them right?

Iraq has literally told us to leave. Not leaving is occupation. (Its always been occupation, but it is much harder to deny it when the government tells the US military to get out.)
Afghanistan has been a total failure and nobody even knows what the goal is now. Its the longest war in US history. A soldier could have gone to Afghanistan to fight and had a child born while he was there and now that child could be fighting in the same war.

Its sickening to hear politicians say they care about people and then see them treat this slaughter and destruction like it is a minor issue.
How can I think someone really cares about refugees in a holding area if they can't be passionate about us starving children. I see it for the blatant political posturing that it is. Kids separated form their parents is bad, but not near as bad as starving babies or blowing them apart.

Okay purist. I don't really know how to have a conversation with you. I'm not saying there's no truth at all in anything you're saying. It's just the way you present it and you solution are completely unrealistic. It's also tethered together by viewing everything we've done in the middle east as a complete and unmitigated disaster. While that may be a popular feeling, it's not completely true when looked at either a micro or macro view. But that's a much more complicated discussion.

If you solution to all of the problems in the middle east is just for the US to pull out and everything will be hunky dory, you're smoking a pipe dream. And you won't convince anybody except for people on the fringe that you're right. If you think that by us pulling out of the middle east, that solves all of our problems in the middle east and we don't have anything to worry about, you're also smoking a pipe dream.

 

[wardorican]

Kasich was someone I'd have considered.

If Rubio wasnt so spineless, he is at least thoughtful.... but he lost me.

 

[MT15]

Kasich, I could support him. William Weld is not as flaky as I thought he was. Evan McMullin (sp?) is another possibility.