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

Users who are viewing this thread

    Heathen

    Just say no to Zionism
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    884
    Reaction score
    866
    Age
    34
    Location
    Utah
    Offline
    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.
     
    Last edited:
    So she's got the same positions as literally every single other democrat, but she didn't offend you by voting against your guy.

    Again, Trump is not my guy... I didn't vote for him.... and I won't vote for him. I'd prefer to strap my vote to an Acme dynamite kit and give it to Wile E. Coyote... before I cast that vote for anyone on the extreme Left or Right... until we demand some middle ground and sanity... we'll keep getting extreme garbage...

    On the surface, Tulsi doesn't seem to be a complete political party puppet for either side, and seemingly at least has some sense of "self" (which is in short supply these days)... and I agree with some of her policies, and not so much with others.

    Her positions are much like most Dems... but not completely... I listed some examples of why I'd consider her... and I was honest about it...

    Feel free to troll someone else, or go back and re-read what I wrote.
     
    Last edited:
    BF, it’s not so much that I support the Democratic Party as it is that the Republican Party has gone off the deep end. And you can whine about Nancy all you want, she is the adult in the room. As a parent, sometimes you have to do something you normally wouldn’t do just to get the toddler’s attention.

    She made her point about his speech being full of misstatements and outright lies, and it’s far less damaging to the country than what the Rs are doing by licking Trump’s boots. You don’t deal with a childish bully by capitulating to him, you stand up to him. Even this 64 yo grandmother knows that.

    If the R’s have their way, we will have an omnipotent Executive branch and a president who can use the DOJ with impunity to punish his political rivals, there is already a report that Trump not only wants to stop Bolton’s book from being published at all, he wants the DOJ to figure out something he could be charged with.

    I realize you only see the faults on the D side, and refuse to acknowledge the faults on the R side. I see them both and have made a rational decision. The Ds have their faults, but we will have to deal with them after we deal with what the Rs are doing and who they are enabling. Just that simple.

    It seems you are ignoring the part where Nancy spent the bulk of the evening watching her House Dems and admonishing them to sit up straight and be quiet. That happened, just as it did the last SOTU.
     
    Tulsi was a bit of a phenom among conservatives well before she said "present." But my sense is that it was never "I might vote for her" attraction, it was more like "I would vote for her if she didn't [insert liberal position she has taken.]"

    She was admired for taking down Harris and calling out Mayor Pete. She was admired for being anti war and anti Dem elite.

    The fact that her chest kinda glistens when she is on stage didn't hurt.
     
    Id love for Tulsi to be Sanders running mate but unfortunately she 's disliked by so many in the Democratic party that may not be a good idea.
     
    Tulsi would be the most appealing due to her foreign policy views and not being an establishment politician. Yang seems very genuine.

    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.
     
    Tulsi would be the most appealing due to her foreign policy views and not being an establishment politician. Yang seems very genuine.

    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.

    I agree with your sentiment. What solutions of his do you not agree with? FTR i don't agree with all of Sanders' policies either, just curious.
     
    On the Democrats, I would vote for any of them over Trump, but that is voting against someone--not for someone.

    As to who are actually running, I would vote for Buttigieg, Yang, and maybe Klobachar.
    On the Republicans, I would vote for Weld.
     

    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. Meanwhile, back home, people who consider themselves to be advocates for gay rights are strangely silent. They are too concerned about bathrooms, pronouns and trying to deny general differences between men and women to be concerned. It's worse than a distraction. They actually create a backlash against the people they say they support.
     
    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. Meanwhile, back home, people who consider themselves to be advocates for gay rights are strangely silent. They are too concerned about bathrooms, pronouns and trying to deny general differences between men and women to be concerned. It's worse than a distraction. They actually create a backlash against the people they say they support.

    But do Republicans really care about gay rights, or are they just interested in pointing out the supposed hypocrisies on the other side?

    Based on this administration's actions in attempting to remove laws that prohibit discrimination against LGBT Americans, and the history of the Republican party in general, I'd have to go with the latter.
     
    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. Meanwhile, back home, people who consider themselves to be advocates for gay rights are strangely silent. They are too concerned about bathrooms, pronouns and trying to deny general differences between men and women to be concerned. It's worse than a distraction. They actually create a backlash against the people they say they support.

    That thrown off the roof thing? Still happens in America, yo. Especially to trans people.
     
    But do Republicans really care about gay rights, or are they just interested in pointing out the supposed hypocrisies on the other side?

    Based on this administration's actions in attempting to remove laws that prohibit discrimination against LGBT Americans, and the history of the Republican party in general, I'd have to go with the latter.

    I think both. The Trump administration has actively sought to decriminalize homosexuality worldwide.

    I think we should give credit when people do what we believe to be the right thing.
     
    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. Meanwhile, back home, people who consider themselves to be advocates for gay rights are strangely silent. They are too concerned about bathrooms, pronouns and trying to deny general differences between men and women to be concerned. It's worse than a distraction. They actually create a backlash against the people they say they support.
    This does not show that you are interested in a serious discussion of the issues, including LGBTQ like you said
     
    I think both. The Trump administration has actively sought to decriminalize homosexuality worldwide.

    I think we should give credit when people do what we believe to be the right thing.

    That's good, but the many number of actions his admin has taken in our own country to weaken LGBT protections tells a different story. The narrative may be changing, but the GOP for the most part still has an old school way of looking at how gay Americans are treated. And by that i mean whenever people vote to treat those Americans more equally, the right predictably shrieks about its religion being touched or some other bulls### excuse.

    Hopefully we can turn the page on this nonsense. Both parties.
     
    Fine, we can table that discussion.
    Which is fine, but I would like to offer that in the years I’ve read your posts, I can’t remember anytime when you’ve come out for something- you have a well documented crusade against progressivism (I’d argue even a distaste for centrism); but at the end of the day it’s still just an -ism
    Without the perspective of what you are for, there’s not much foundation for your reactions

    I look forward to your glancing quip
     
    Last edited:
    Which is fine, but I would like to offer that in the years I’ve read your posts, I can’t remember anytime when you’ve come out for something- you have a well documented crusade against progressivism (I’d argue even a distaste for centrism); but at the end of the day it’s still just an -ism
    Without the perspective of what you are for, there’s not much foundation for your reactions

    I look forward to your glancing quip

    The problem is on your end then. I don't even have to go far for an example. Just based on my last couple of posts in this thread it should be apparent that I support the Trump administration's efforts to decriminalize homosexuality worldwide.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom