“Can’t I find level headed Democrats, Republican and Independents that are level headed? Is walking across the aisle possible or is it mere hypocrisy?

[LightSun]

Can’t I find level headed Democrats, Republican and Independents that are level headed? Is walking across the aisle possible or is it mere hypocrisy?

For those from either party that succumb to the cognitive distortions of:
(1). Labeling, name calling and pejoratives or
(2). All or nothing thinking and generalizing

I am responding to a a post that is anti-trump. They use though only insults and put downs and nothing constructive.

I’ve found out postings like this accomplish nothing. They are passive aggressive at a bare minimum.

You’re only preaching to the choir. There is a saying, “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

The above statement is not 100% true. If someone attacks another party but that second party is psychologically, emotionally and spiritually evolved and mature enough to not take it personally, then they will not respond in kind.

This is (2A). hate mongering. It is just as distasteful for all those Obama bashers. (3). It accomplishes nothing. (4). It is not mature. (5). It is not intelligent.
(6). It accomplishes nothing except preach to the choir.
(7). It is ineffectual speech.

There are members of the other party already who hate you. All you do is pour gasoline unto the fire.

Personally I look for either Republican or Democrat that tries to communicate in an adult and mature fashion. One who ardently seeks to walk across the aisle.

This requires: (8). an open mind, (9). tolerance for those of disparate beliefs and opinions, (10). respect and respectful dialogue in (11). communicating to somebody on the other side of the aisle that actually makes sense.

Without these ingredients in communication any progress is impossible. Just because someone is an ass, should not let you to talk and behave as an ass yourself. Then what’s the difference? How can you tell apart both warring parties?

P.S. I abhor Mr. Trump. He is anti -ethical to all I stand for. I have no idea of people can not be offended by the words that come out of his mouth.

He triggers in me great aversion. I do not let that trigger manifest into boorish and senseless attacks against him.

If I talk about him, I stick to objective facts. In my actions, I simply will not vote for him, simple and easy.” LightSun

 

[Coriolis]

We need to do more than simply not vote for him. We need to not vote for his supporters and allies running for office. We need to fill public and private discourse with the truth we know, to push out the lies he and his supporters have spread. We need to understand that information has become more than ever a weapon, and cannot be dismissed as "just words". We need actively to become part of the solution, or we will through inaction become part of the problem.

 

[LightSun]

I agree @Coriolis. I’ve written articles on some of his faux pax. I’ll further elaborate at a later post, but for now I’ve written of:
1. His saying, “I’ve something on President Obama that will surprise the American people. He outright lied to America with no shame.

2. His disgracefully and with no shame calling Rosie O’Donnell a farm animal scientifically proven to have an IQ higher than a dog.

3. I’ve pointed out that in his dialogue, it is filled with cognitive distortions such as:
3.1. Emotional Reasoning
3.2. Generalizations, All or Nothing thinking
3.3. Labeling, pejoratives, and name calling.

4. How he throws his own party members under the bus. He blasts anybody and everybody. He is loyal only to himself. He fools them and they are apparently oblivious.

This is but a few. I say I’m my writings that it isn’t being partisan, it is this odious man. I would never ever mention presidents Ford, Bush I and II, Reagan or any democrat in the same breath.

I share my mystification how people can rationalize away all of his narcissist behaviors and say they want him for a second term. For those people who espouse this,

I am incredulous over their seeming blindness. How can people want a man who has displayed no character, ethics or moral?”

 

[The Cat]

I agree @Coriolis. I’ve written articles on some of his faux pax. I’ll further elaborate at a later post, but for now I’ve written of:
1. His saying, “I’ve something on President Obama that will surprise the American people. He outright lied to America with no shame.

2. His disgracefully and with no shame calling Rosie O’Donnell a farm animal scientifically proven to have an IQ higher than a dog.

3. I’ve pointed out that in his dialogue, it is filled with cognitive distortions such as:
3.1. Emotional Reasoning
3.2. Generalizations, All or Nothing thinking
3.3. Labeling, pejoratives, and name calling.

4. How he throws his own party members under the bus. He blasts anybody and everybody. He is loyal only to himself. He fools them and they are apparently oblivious.

This is but a few. I say I’m my writings that it isn’t being partisan, it is this odious man. I would never ever mention presidents Ford, Bush I and II, Reagan or any democrat in the same breath.

I share my mystification how people can rationalize away all of his narcissist behaviors and say they want him for a second term. For those people who espouse this,

I am incredulous over their seeming blindness. How can people want a man who has displayed no character, ethics or moral?”

Sweet Dreams are made of this: who are we to disagree, travel the world and the seven seas everybody's looking for something. Some of them want to use him, some of them want to be used by him. Some of them want to abuse you, some of them want to be abused.

On on hand Occupy Wall street seemed to scare the elites, badly and I'll wager, on both sides of that imaginary skein of moral balance known simply as the isle... So in their fear they turned to a man they didn't fully understand...A man who gave half the country the excuse to ask the question they've been dying to ask since they first became aware of how the question made them feel the first time they heard it...Wanna know how I got these scars?

On Another hand...​

Madness, like laughter, is contagious.... and old wounds long scabbed over and hidden to many, have festered for generations...Everyone in Westeros knows that Winter is coming...but all eyes get drawn to Kings Landing, ironically regardless how much they talk about a wall...Tourneys distract the commoners from the dire wolves and lions and dragons ruling in their midst.

Never forget. No figure head sits upon the iron throne alone. A person could wonder what sins of the septim did mad king cover with his distractions of cruelty by dragon fire...

On a tentacle...A level head is largely a matter of perspective. Once you realize that politicians and patricians are essentially the same thing. They sing songs of the unfinished pyramid, while stacking themselves in the shape of a gilded capstone. They cannot relate to their marked constituents, as the prestige demands of them, they cannot lift the foundation out of the bedrock, and they cannot afford to lose all that strong support from the bottom, and they are not willing to descend from the mountaintop so no one believes in the divine right of the few who claim right to ascend to the top...​

On a more sinister tentacle...
One wonders what sorts of children's rhymes such times continue that narrative of kings,
What songs of six pence,
How many pockets full of posies?
Actions?
Non Actions?
We all fall down.

mene mene tekel upharsin Not quite the American Dream as advertised. But then again, these days, what is actually as advertised aside from mistrust of course. Why if things keep going this way soon there will even be efforts at accounting for taste, and that's not going to work out the way anyone hopes. ​

​

He reminds them of someone they love, something they lost, and the whisper that wakes them in the dark of the night reminding them who and what they really are Needful Things...
And he makes it ok to be needful. And he makes it ok to let your need consume you.
And as far as the elites of both sides are concerned.
He keeps the people divided in such a way that half can be used as fanatical blunt instruments to keep people mistrustful of each other and ideologically divided to the point that common ground becomes nothing but a battlefield, and none of the rabble will be able to occupy any street ever again...or so seems the hope...
Politics and Prestidigitation have more in common than being brought to you by the letter P.
Mind the Gap.​

​

 

[LightSun]

“What do you look for when voting? What are the standards and ethics you expect from out political leaders? What political reforms would you like to see enacted in Washington and all levels of politics?

What reforms do you think would lead to better qualified representative politicians to best serve this country? If you had to choose just one single political reform, what would it be?

What attributes makes a good leader? Do you turn a blind eye if you elected someone based on partisanship, but they have faults?
What is a complete turn off of both political parties?” LightSun

 

[LightSun]

“I want to hold both politicians and the media to a standard. I wish for objective facts communicated in a debate style and not possessing cognitive distortions in their communication.

I’d like to hold these people accountable to communicate at least like a high school junior on a debate team. Fox News and MSNBC don’t qualify for my standard of journalistic standards.

If a person pays attention to only these networks, you are being shortchanged and unknowingly being brainwashed with propaganda telling you what you want to hear.”

 

[LightSun]

“For me it’s hate mongering when I see the left or the right pointing fingers against members of the opposite party. I am sure I can find problems with every single president there was.

Those who focus on what a president didn’t do, are focusing on the negative. It’s hate and propaganda and dogma. For those who fall into line with blasting in an all or nothing attack on the other party, you are blind.

For those who blast the other party in entirety, I discount you completely. I don’t take you seriously. You’ve been contaminated by brain washing partisanship, hate and propaganda.

All of this in your unconscious stereotypes, prejudices and fears. Anybody who falls into this category, you are part of the problem. Political and religious dogma is keeping people from thinking clearly and thus are a hinderence for society moving forward.

We need both political parties to enact change. I want to focus on the positive things done by every president, Republican and Democrat. I am all for being proactive, and finding solutions. For this to occur we need certain qualities.

1. Tolerance for those of dissimilar belief
2. Open Mind and seeking to learn and see from another persons perspective
3. Respect for people with dissimilar beliefs
4. Communication and actually walking across the aisle

Those that don’t have these ingredients on both sides of the political spectrum need to be voted out of office. The other thing worth mentioning is when those who espouse hate by focusing on the negative and what a president didn’t do, you don’t take into account the political process.

Due to partisanship anybody elected is generally going to find opposition from the other party to put into implementation of any reform they are seeking to implement.

We need to have term limits. We need members of all our political parties who can communicate intelligently with members of the other party. This need to happen so that l we can actually put into practice walking across the aisle.” LightSun

 

[LightSun]

“What are ingredients for growth? What should we look for especially in our political leaders?

Though it should not just be limited to the highest offices. It should also trickle down to the media and every aspect of a functioning society.

1. Having Tolerance for those of dissimilar beliefs. Remember your beliefs are for your independent journey in life. Another has different lessons to learn based on their own individuality and uniqueness.

2. Having or at least trying to maintain an Open Mind set. With such a mindset open we can learn and see from another persons unique perspective. One based on their culture. It is a great ingredient to have to value diversity.

3. Respect for people with dissimilar beliefs is essential. Remember we all have blind spots.
With these blind spots we are susceptible to hidden unconscious fears, prejudices and stereotypes. These all delimit our understanding of the greater whole.

4. Being able to Communicate with others and having these ingredients is essential to actually being able to walk across the aisle.

5. We should be mindful of those that don’t have these characteristics. We need to vote out of office people that don’t manifest these qualities to better understanding and a greater future.” LightSun

 

[ygolo]

It's looking like the U.S.A has avoided a red wave. I think it was largely due to fear of fascism. But the I think there is still a fairly broad consensus that the right has gotten a better system for talking to people where they are, while the left has been more sanctimonious. Here are a couple of liberals making the same point, and analyzing what can be done about it.

 

[The Cat]

It's looking like the U.S.A has avoided a red wave. I think it was largely due to fear of fascism. But the I think there is still a fairly broad consensus that the right has gotten a better system for talking to people where they are, while the left has been more sanctimonious. Here are a couple of liberals making the same point, and analyzing what can be done about it.

Yeah, another thing a lot of left sources dont seem to grasp is a lot of people on the right are born into it and indoctrinated from the cradle; and while no one on the right is really running towards anything policy wise, a whole hell of a lot of the voting base is running from something they think is gonna literally drag them to hell...which isnt just a metaphor sadly. Fear is a hell of a motivator and the leadership on the right tells these people they're right to fear, and ironically they'll follow someone to hell just for that. Tragic.

 

[Coriolis]

Yeah, another thing a lot of left sources dont seem to grasp is a lot of people on the right are born into it and indoctrinated from the cradle; and while no one on the right is really running towards anything policy wise, a whole hell of a lot of the voting base is running from something they think is gonna literally drag them to hell...which isnt just a metaphor sadly. Fear is a hell of a motivator and the leadership on the right tells these people they're right to fear, and ironically they'll follow someone to hell just for that. Tragic.

Yes, it is hard to overcome this sort of lifelong indoctrination. It happens, but typically through long, intense, one-on-one encounters where people really get to know and respect someone from "the other side", and realize their concerns and values are really not that dissimilar. This is divide-and-conquer politics based on fear: the fear that, if someone else, or some other group, improves their lot, it will come at your expense. People with wealth and power are invested in perpetuating and deepening these divisions, lest those with neither band together to demand their fair share.

As for compromise and "crossing the aisle", it is not hypocrisy but won't work unless both/all sides are willing to do it. Otherwise it is just unilateral disarmament, like one hand trying to clap alone.

 

[ygolo]

Yes, it is hard to overcome this sort of lifelong indoctrination. It happens, but typically through long, intense, one-on-one encounters where people really get to know and respect someone from "the other side", and realize their concerns and values are really not that dissimilar. This is divide-and-conquer politics based on fear: the fear that, if someone else, or some other group, improves their lot, it will come at your expense. People with wealth and power are invested in perpetuating and deepening these divisions, lest those with neither band together to demand their fair share.

As for compromise and "crossing the aisle", it is not hypocrisy but won't work unless both/all sides are willing to do it. Otherwise it is just unilateral disarmament, like one hand trying to clap alone.

Indeed, I do feel that one side is fighting for dignity of many groups that are down and out. But, the language used is often one of dismissal, and that's where things go wrong. Anger and heated disagreement is fine. But contempt and dismissal is where things go awry.

As was mentioned in the podcast I linked, where Hillary Clinton went wrong in the 2016 election was not when she called the other side "deplorable", but "irredeemable". One is a strong statement of sentiment about the other side, the other is statement about herself giving up.

There were a lot of good points in the podcast. If the democrats did those things, I think they would do more than just take back the house next election. I am thinking about getting that book written by the guest.

Robert Reich also gave a lecture about 4 years ago at Berkeley that I believe is still rather relevant. He talks about civility and removing labels from discussions.

 

[ceecee]

It's looking like the U.S.A has avoided a red wave. I think it was largely due to fear of fascism. But the I think there is still a fairly broad consensus that the right has gotten a better system for talking to people where they are, while the left has been more sanctimonious. Here are a couple of liberals making the same point, and analyzing what can be done about it.

The right isn't meeting people where they're at and, with a very few exceptions, neither are liberals. But the right does two things well that liberals should pay attention to - one is not pay walling most of their media and two is not attacking their fringe.

 

[ygolo]

The right isn't meeting people where they're at and, with a very few exceptions, neither are liberals. But the right does two things well that liberals should pay attention to - one is not pay walling most of their media and two is not attacking their fringe.

Perhaps I didn't put it exactly right. But the "meaning making" ladder from an individual's specific experiences to what the party wants people to believe is more efficient on the right than the left.

One thing is for certain, if Democrats have to consider avoiding a red wave as a win at a time when the right is clearly leaning much more fascist than in the past, many things could be improved.

Yes, Biden faced a lot of adversities that were largely out of his control. But the "orthodox" approach of meeting economic problems with mainly monetary policy(interest rates and the fed balance sheet) rather than fiscal responses as well (like trust-busting, investment in dynamism/infrastructure/research, getting housing crises under control, legislating for wage equality and against price gouging) is not something that sits well with people like me (independents with a liberal mindset).

I know a DeSantis v. Trump factioning of the Republican party is also a positive for the Democrats. This will help the Democrats odds for the presidential election.

But there are long standing structural problems with the way the party handles those who vote for them. I will openly admit that besides having a mindset of basically never joining a party, I am not a fan of the Democratic party. I vote for the Democrats mainly because I feel like the Republican party has clear seats at their table for fascists and white supremacists.

I also think the way to get better support is not with watered down "centrist" milquetoast policies that nobody can get excited about, while simultaneously dismissing those who disagree. Rather, I believe it's better to stick to our convictions, while being open to dialogue, and yes even changing our own minds, while hearing out people who at first meeting seem "deplorable" in our own eyes with the hopes of changing their minds.

The right has been running harder and harder to the right, moving the center along with it. I am talking neither about extremism nor blind compromise in order to win elections--just backbone, with understanding and dialogue.

 

[Coriolis]

“What do you look for when voting? What are the standards and ethics you expect from out political leaders? What political reforms would you like to see enacted in Washington and all levels of politics?

What reforms do you think would lead to better qualified representative politicians to best serve this country? If you had to choose just one single political reform, what would it be?

What attributes makes a good leader? Do you turn a blind eye if you elected someone based on partisanship, but they have faults?
What is a complete turn off of both political parties?” LightSun

The first thing to look for is the candidate's stance on voting itself. Are they interested in expanding the voter base, increasing turnout across the board, making it easy for all citizens to vote? Or are they trying to make the process more difficult, with no concern for how many will be effectively disenfranchised as a result? A democratic system will not produce better candidates more responsive to their constituents if all constituents don't have the opportunity to cast their ballot. It is telling that in recent years this has been cast as a partisan issue. It is not. People who encourage voting the loudest won't tell you who or what to vote for.

Second, we need to eliminate gerrymandering across the board. This is a corrupt practice in which a party in power - whether Democrat or Republican - will map out congressional districts that divide supporters of their opponent among many districts so they do not have a critical mass of votes to elect representatives who share their views. Districts should follow reasonable lines of city limits, neighborhoods, etc. and candidates should have to try to earn the votes of everyone, not just people likely to agree with them. After all, elections are about voters choosing their politicians, not politicians choosing their voters.

Finally, we have to take money out of politics. Until the infamous Citizens United decision is overturned or overruled somehow by congress, though, that won't happen. Ideally, campaigns will be 100% publicly funded, with each candidate getting the same amount of money. They will then need to distinguish themselves by how they use that money and the message they put out with it.

 

[ceecee]

The first thing to look for is the candidate's stance on voting itself. Are they interested in expanding the voter base, increasing turnout across the board, making it easy for all citizens to vote? Or are they trying to make the process more difficult, with no concern for how many will be effectively disenfranchised as a result? A democratic system will not produce better candidates more responsive to their constituents if all constituents don't have the opportunity to cast their ballot. It is telling that in recent years this has been cast as a partisan issue. It is not. People who encourage voting the loudest won't tell you who or what to vote for.

Second, we need to eliminate gerrymandering across the board. This is a corrupt practice in which a party in power - whether Democrat or Republican - will map out congressional districts that divide supporters of their opponent among many districts so they do not have a critical mass of votes to elect representatives who share their views. Districts should follow reasonable lines of city limits, neighborhoods, etc. and candidates should have to try to earn the votes of everyone, not just people likely to agree with them. After all, elections are about voters choosing their politicians, not politicians choosing their voters.

Finally, we have to take money out of politics. Until the infamous Citizens United decision is overturned or overruled somehow by congress, though, that won't happen. Ideally, campaigns will be 100% publicly funded, with each candidate getting the same amount of money. They will then need to distinguish themselves by how they use that money and the message they put out with it.

I just want to add - I hope people now see very clearly what kind of cancer lobbying groups have the capacity to be. AIPAC - The American Israel Public Affairs Committee - steers US policy. This isn't hyperbole in the least.

US: States Use Anti-Boycott Laws to Punish Responsible Businesses

Many United States states are using anti-boycott laws and executive orders to punish companies that refuse to do business with illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Human Rights Watch said today. More than 250 million Americans, some 78 percent of the population, live in states with...

www.hrw.org

Twenty-seven states have adopted laws or policies that penalize businesses, organizations, or individuals that engage in or call for boycotts against Israel. The laws or policies in 17 of those states explicitly target not only companies that refuse to do business in or with Israel, but also those that refuse to do business in Israeli settlements. Some states whose laws do not explicitly apply to settlements have also penalized companies that cut settlement ties.

I also agree that campaigns should be publicly funded. I think that the hope for most politicians and those that fund them is that donors remail hidden (CU allows that), that corporations can remain people to some degree (also part of CU)

https://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/3352...-become-people-excavating-the-legal-evolution

and the greater right wing can continue to erode voting rights, increase gerrymandering and keep getting more insane laws to be made.

This law passed btw.

A bill that could lead to librarians facing jail time heads to full House for vote

A bill that would open up librarians to felony charges for showing obscene material to minors will head to the House of Delegates for consideration. On Monday, bill sponsor Del. Brandon Steele, R-Raleigh, called for support of his legislation in a fiery speech, in which he said libraries were...

www.newsfromthestates.com

 

[ygolo]

I seriously afraid.

A War on Blue America

In a second term, Trump would punish the cities and states that don’t support him.

www.theatlantic.com

Loading…

www.reuters.com

Three Comforting Lies Democrats Need to Stop Telling Themselves About November

Let’s start with strategists saying Biden’s polls are nothing to worry about.

slate.com

I am only speaking anecdotally, and I see no way I can be convinced to vote for Trump.

But there are plenty of people who will stay at home on election day, or even vote for Trump over Biden that I know. The main reason is housing affordability. Almost the only reason is housing affordability, when you think about the secondary effects. I am not sure how or why the pundits come up with all these other things.

Biden has been making public faux pas even during the campaigns in 2008. It is not like Trump is any better at seeming mentally fit.

The issue people have with Biden, I believe, is that he seems like he would be a puppet for his establishment staffers.

What is the key establishment issue that drives people? - the establishment ignoring affordable housing (and all the knock-on effects, homelessness, crime, resource short-falls in cities, ...).

There is something about the whole milieu coming out of lack of affordable housing that the establishment does not want people to talk about. It is brought up in public in passing, and immediately publicly ignored/dismissed. Every time the main stream media does it, I feel like the Democrats are losing voters.

Every email that talks about "inflation" without talking about the cost of housing, they lose voters. Every public releasee where they talk about how well the economy is doing and they don't take about the cost of housing, they lose voters. Every time left-leaning media talks about Biden's troubles, or his age, and doesn't talk about the cost of housing, they lose voters. They feel ignored.

Just like Katie Porter initially had a winning narrative about inflation that was good for Democrats. There is a winning narrative that the Democrats can have on housing.

More importantly, Biden can do something about the cost of housing, and unfreeze the rotation of housing stock through life-stages. Older people wanting do downsize(but it would be stupid financially), mid-life people wanting to move from the starter-home to a larger one if they could, as well as young people (not inheriting directly) wanting a starter home. People wanting to move closer or into dead cities could afford to do that to bring them back to life (ending this sanctuary-city of crime-border problem narrative).

Biden did loan forgiveness before. What about doing it for people who are on federal housing loans or those programs for refinancing federally backed that happened in 2008?...or something-really anything showing a broad-based (non-generational conflict rooted) attempt to address the cost of housing crisis.

 

[ceecee]

I seriously afraid.

A War on Blue America

In a second term, Trump would punish the cities and states that don’t support him.

www.theatlantic.com

Loading…

www.reuters.com

Three Comforting Lies Democrats Need to Stop Telling Themselves About November

Let’s start with strategists saying Biden’s polls are nothing to worry about.

slate.com

I am only speaking anecdotally, and I see no way I can be convinced to vote for Trump.

But there are plenty of people who will stay at home on election day, or even vote for Trump over Biden that I know. The main reason is housing affordability. Almost the only reason is housing affordability, when you think about the secondary effects. I am not sure how or why the pundits come up with all these other things.

Biden has been making public faux pas even during the campaigns in 2008. It is not like Trump is any better at seeming mentally fit.

The issue people have with Biden, I believe, is that he seems like he would be a puppet for his establishment staffers.

What is the key establishment issue that drives people? - the establishment ignoring affordable housing (and all the knock-on effects, homelessness, crime, resource short-falls in cities, ...).

There is something about the whole milieu coming out of lack of affordable housing that the establishment does not want people to talk about. It is brought up in public in passing, and immediately publicly ignored/dismissed. Every time the main stream media does it, I feel like the Democrats are losing voters.

Every email that talks about "inflation" without talking about the cost of housing, they lose voters. Every public releasee where they talk about how well the economy is doing and they don't take about the cost of housing, they lose voters. Every time left-leaning media talks about Biden's troubles, or his age, and doesn't talk about the cost of housing, they lose voters. They feel ignored.

Just like Katie Porter initially had a winning narrative about inflation that was good for Democrats. There is a winning narrative that the Democrats can have on housing.

More importantly, Biden can do something about the cost of housing, and unfreeze the rotation of housing stock through life-stages. Older people wanting do downsize(but it would be stupid financially), mid-life people wanting to move from the starter-home to a larger one if they could, as well as young people (not inheriting directly) wanting a starter home. People wanting to move closer or into dead cities could afford to do that to bring them back to life (ending this sanctuary-city of crime-border problem narrative).

Biden did loan forgiveness before. What about doing it for people who are on federal housing loans or those programs for refinancing federally backed that happened in 2008?...or something-really anything showing a broad-based (non-generational conflict rooted) attempt to address the cost of housing crisis.

ANY Republican, at any level, ever again. And I barely want to vote for Democrats either. They're a lot of things but I have yet to see or hear of Dems sponsoring and/or passing anything on the level of Republicans. So when we talk about "level headed-ness" I don't see where any confusion lies.

This cockroach is part of Trump/Heritage Foundation/Project 2025

 

[Virtual ghost]

ANY Republican, at any level, ever again. And I barely want to vote for Democrats either. They're a lot of things but I have yet to see or hear of Dems sponsoring and/or passing anything on the level of Republicans. So when we talk about "level headed-ness" I don't see where any confusion lies.

This cockroach is part of Trump/Heritage Foundation/Project 2025

This reminds me a little bit on my own local Communists. The state should decide what you will think, while they will control all the information and who has the right to them. The concept of personal suffering is irrelevant if it is for the glory of the state/nation. Everyone who will resist will be dealt with my morality police. Etc.


At the end of the day all autocrats are basically like eggs. There is very little difference in methodology among them.

 

[ygolo]

ANY Republican, at any level, ever again. And I barely want to vote for Democrats either. They're a lot of things but I have yet to see or hear of Dems sponsoring and/or passing anything on the level of Republicans. So when we talk about "level headed-ness" I don't see where any confusion lies.

This cockroach is part of Trump/Heritage Foundation/Project 2025

I've lost hope for a level headed Republican any time soon.

But Biden himself is close. I actually think he has that old working-class Joe in him somewhere. I just don't know if he has the reigns still.

Like I said, trying to convince me is redundant (I already know how I am voting).

I know a lot of people staying home or even switching (as an FU vote). They have lost faith in the system as a whole.