dimitrig said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Both parties have changed and changed dramatically.

Kennedy's Dem party would pass for Republican today. Bill Clinton couldn't get elected today. It was only 14 years ago that Barack Obama was in favor of domestic partnerships but not gay marriage.

Reagan and Trump really couldn't be much different (frankly, a lot of MAGA domestic and foreign policy feels rather Democratish circa 1950's-1980s).

The one way both parties is the same is the both fundamentally care about one thing and one thing only above all else: gaining and retaining political power.

---

I'm not sure I agree with you line for line, but your last sentence is spot on. What we need right now is to unify around a platform independent of the two main parties. Right now pretty much anybody that runs as an independent has a decent chance if they play it right.

There are things that both sides can agree on as a platform:

• Money in politics = corruption in politics
• Better Jobs for Americans
• Lower taxes on the middle class
• Raise taxes on the super wealthy
• Law and order
• Fair and accountable elections
• Get rid of corruption and politics in the higher courts
• Protect the environment
• Develop energy locally
• human rights
• lower the military budget (stop paying for illegal wars and hold the pentagon accountable financially)
• Government stay out of our private lives
• Break ties with global elites so they can't control our economy, culture and politics
• Honor the constitution and Democracy
• Stop welfare for the wealthy and able
• Universal health care
• Minimum wage
• Protect social security
• Improve education
• improve mental health access
• Keep guns out of the hands of dangerous and/or mentally ill people
• Deal with poverty and homelessness
• Reduce the cost of housing and health care

These are the things that most Americans both conservative and Liberal believe in. Despite what the media reports, these things poll well continuously across a cross section of America.

---

All of these points sound like the Democrat platform and the GOP opposes many of them.

---

you missed my point. Yes, the party does and that's the problem with party politics. The large majority of actual voters do not oppose these things. Trust polls over parties.

---

You missed my point which is that the Democratic Party stands for almost all of these so those RINOs just need to recognize that. We don't need a 3rd party, we just need people to vote for the party that actually represents their interests.

---

You have to recognize how shallow that argument is. You think Republicans are for corruption, no jobs, no law and order, no energy independence, enhancing welfare for the able? It is never about the result. It is about the how. It is nonsense to say the Democrats have cornered the market for positive results for America. You have special interest you want to protect and Republicans do, but they both argue on the same result.

BearHunter said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Both parties have changed and changed dramatically.

Kennedy's Dem party would pass for Republican today. Bill Clinton couldn't get elected today. It was only 14 years ago that Barack Obama was in favor of domestic partnerships but not gay marriage.

Reagan and Trump really couldn't be much different (frankly, a lot of MAGA domestic and foreign policy feels rather Democratish circa 1950's-1980s).

The one way both parties is the same is the both fundamentally care about one thing and one thing only above all else: gaining and retaining political power.

---

I'm not sure I agree with you line for line, but your last sentence is spot on. What we need right now is to unify around a platform independent of the two main parties. Right now pretty much anybody that runs as an independent has a decent chance if they play it right.

There are things that both sides can agree on as a platform:

• Money in politics = corruption in politics
• Better Jobs for Americans
• Lower taxes on the middle class
• Raise taxes on the super wealthy
• Law and order
• Fair and accountable elections
• Get rid of corruption and politics in the higher courts
• Protect the environment
• Develop energy locally
• human rights
• lower the military budget (stop paying for illegal wars and hold the pentagon accountable financially)
• Government stay out of our private lives
• Break ties with global elites so they can't control our economy, culture and politics
• Honor the constitution and Democracy
• Stop welfare for the wealthy and able
• Universal health care
• Minimum wage
• Protect social security
• Improve education
• improve mental health access
• Keep guns out of the hands of dangerous and/or mentally ill people
• Deal with poverty and homelessness
• Reduce the cost of housing and health care

These are the things that most Americans both conservative and Liberal believe in. Despite what the media reports, these things poll well continuously across a cross section of America.

---

That's a good list, I'd like to add the following (from Victor David Hanson)

• Not allowing biological men to compete in women's sports.
• Making it illegal to fire anyone for saying there are only two genders
• Preventing 2.3 million people illegally entering the country each year.
• Eliminating month-long elections and reducing the 70% mail in ballot number.
• Holding BLM and Antifa accountable for destroying neighborhoods, causing $2 billion in damage.
• Holding the FBI, DOJ, and the corporate media accountable for framing Donald Trump as a Russian agent to rig the 2016 election.
• Holding the CIA and the corporate media accountable for claiming that Hunter Biden's laptop was "Russian disinformation" to rig the 2020 election.
• Holding the FBI and DOJ accountable for hiding Hunter Biden's laptop, containing evidence of FARA violations, money laundering, and foreign bribes, to help Joe Biden become POTUS.
• Holding the DHS, CISA, and the White House accountable for working with Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to censor American citizens.

---

Yeah, if we could just get most Americans to come to a consensus on those 33 simple bullet points (combined from above two posts), our problems would be solvable!

tequila4kapp said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

There is very little conservative about the modern Republican Party and I sadly agree with many (most?) of the criticisms of it expressed here. But in a two party system, it's the choice by default because the alternative is completely off the rails. It doesn't matter now because they will win regardless of popular sentiment for the same reason that Maduro always wins. Laugh/gloat now while you have the chance. On the bright side, thanks to Chavism, Venezuelans don't need Ozempic.

---

But there is something we can do. Remember, both parties fundamentally care about obtaining and retaining power. That is their Achilles heel. As long as people continue to accept that our only choices are the lesser of two evils, nothing changes. We can refuse to vote or we can start voting in different ways. It is just a numbers game...enough of us need to do something different and the two parties will change. IMO Republicans are more likely to change first, mostly because (IMO) they are a rudderless group that mostly doesn't even pretend to have core values any longer.

---

The answer is, of course, populism. Trump is vulgar, but anyone who despises him because he is "conservative" is just misinformed. He was a Democrat for most of his life and his policies as president were a mishmash of traditionally left and right ideas because deep down he's not an idealogue, he's a pragmatist. But he's a political outsider willing to take on entrenched interests and that is what we need. Don't like Trump? Fine, someone else then. I'd be thrilled if he would leave the political stage if we could replace him with someone with similar energy and will to break the Uniparty stranglehold.

Rather than hate on the populists in the Republican Party, it would be great if sensible liberals would form their own populist coalition and push back against the insanity. Even better if they'd find common cause with right-leaning populists, bring the whole thing to the center where most Americans are, and cleanse the system of the Uniparty.

I'm sure all of this is totally repugnant to most here who identify as Team Blue. But I ask you, would any of you be willing to vote for a Republican? I'd vote for RFK Jr in a heartbeat (even though we have quite different world views) because I think he is an honest man who won't sell out to the establishment. He's the quintessential 60's liberal so I find it fascinating that he is attacked primarily from the left, not the right. It's also interesting that he shares a number of views that align with Trump populists. It's because the Democratic Party has abandoned their raison d'etre and become a cabal of semi-authoritarian, neocon, kleptocratic social Jacobins.

Zippergate said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

There is very little conservative about the modern Republican Party and I sadly agree with many (most?) of the criticisms of it expressed here. But in a two party system, it's the choice by default because the alternative is completely off the rails. It doesn't matter now because they will win regardless of popular sentiment for the same reason that Maduro always wins. Laugh/gloat now while you have the chance. On the bright side, thanks to Chavism, Venezuelans don't need Ozempic.

---

But there is something we can do. Remember, both parties fundamentally care about obtaining and retaining power. That is their Achilles heel. As long as people continue to accept that our only choices are the lesser of two evils, nothing changes. We can refuse to vote or we can start voting in different ways. It is just a numbers game...enough of us need to do something different and the two parties will change. IMO Republicans are more likely to change first, mostly because (IMO) they are a rudderless group that mostly doesn't even pretend to have core values any longer.

---

The answer is, of course, populism. Trump is vulgar, but anyone who despises him because he is "conservative" is just misinformed. He was a Democrat for most of his life and his policies as president were a mishmash of traditionally left and right ideas because deep down he's not an idealogue, he's a pragmatist. But he's a political outsider willing to take on entrenched interests and that is what we need. Don't like Trump? Fine, someone else then. I'd be thrilled if he would leave the political stage if we could replace him with someone with similar energy and will to break the Uniparty stranglehold.

Rather than hate on the populists in the Republican Party, it would be great if sensible liberals would form their own populist coalition and push back against the insanity. Even better if they'd find common cause with right-leaning populists, bring the whole thing to the center where most Americans are, and cleanse the system of the Uniparty.

I'm sure all of this is totally repugnant to most here who identify as Team Blue. But I ask you, would any of you be willing to vote for a Republican? I'd vote for RFK Jr in a heartbeat (even though we have quite different world views) because I think he is an honest man who won't sell out to the establishment. He's the quintessential 60's liberal so I find it fascinating that he is attacked primarily from the left, not the right. It's also interesting that he shares a number of views that align with Trump populists. It's because the Democratic Party has abandoned their raison d'etre and become a cabal of semi-authoritarian, neocon, kleptocratic social Jacobins.

---

I have voted for a Republican. I voted to recall Gray Davis and in favor of The Governator. There have been others for smaller offices such as Controller.

Overall, though, I find their politics unappealing. Do they even talk about repealing Obamacare anymore after making it a central part of their platform? They don't believe in anything except making money.

RFK has some good qualities. I admire his environmental activism. Unfortunately, he is a bigoted kook.

dimitrig said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

There is very little conservative about the modern Republican Party and I sadly agree with many (most?) of the criticisms of it expressed here. But in a two party system, it's the choice by default because the alternative is completely off the rails. It doesn't matter now because they will win regardless of popular sentiment for the same reason that Maduro always wins. Laugh/gloat now while you have the chance. On the bright side, thanks to Chavism, Venezuelans don't need Ozempic.

---

But there is something we can do. Remember, both parties fundamentally care about obtaining and retaining power. That is their Achilles heel. As long as people continue to accept that our only choices are the lesser of two evils, nothing changes. We can refuse to vote or we can start voting in different ways. It is just a numbers game...enough of us need to do something different and the two parties will change. IMO Republicans are more likely to change first, mostly because (IMO) they are a rudderless group that mostly doesn't even pretend to have core values any longer.

---

The answer is, of course, populism. Trump is vulgar, but anyone who despises him because he is "conservative" is just misinformed. He was a Democrat for most of his life and his policies as president were a mishmash of traditionally left and right ideas because deep down he's not an idealogue, he's a pragmatist. But he's a political outsider willing to take on entrenched interests and that is what we need. Don't like Trump? Fine, someone else then. I'd be thrilled if he would leave the political stage if we could replace him with someone with similar energy and will to break the Uniparty stranglehold.

Rather than hate on the populists in the Republican Party, it would be great if sensible liberals would form their own populist coalition and push back against the insanity. Even better if they'd find common cause with right-leaning populists, bring the whole thing to the center where most Americans are, and cleanse the system of the Uniparty.

I'm sure all of this is totally repugnant to most here who identify as Team Blue. But I ask you, would any of you be willing to vote for a Republican? I'd vote for RFK Jr in a heartbeat (even though we have quite different world views) because I think he is an honest man who won't sell out to the establishment. He's the quintessential 60's liberal so I find it fascinating that he is attacked primarily from the left, not the right. It's also interesting that he shares a number of views that align with Trump populists. It's because the Democratic Party has abandoned their raison d'etre and become a cabal of semi-authoritarian, neocon, kleptocratic social Jacobins.

---

I have voted for a Republican. I voted to recall Gray Davis and in favor of The Governator. There have been others for smaller offices such as Controller.

Overall, though, I find their politics unappealing. Do they even talk about repealing Obamacare anymore after making it a central part of their platform? They don't believe in anything except making money.

RFK has some good qualities. I admire his environmental activism. Unfortunately, he is a bigoted kook.

---

The Governator was pretty RINO, not all that different than Trump though stylistically much more appealing.

I can understand your commitment to Obamacare. The health system is an absolute mess. I would argue that Obamacare has made the system even less efficient and merely transferred the burden from some individuals (certainly a good thing) to the federal government which was already on a totally unsustainable fiscal glide path. If we're merely one-issue voters, I'll go with providing safety and security. Opening the borders, defunding the police, decriminalizing petty theft, allowing drug addicts to run rampant, and stoking racial hatred are a greater concern to most Americans in my opinion.

As for RFK Jr, I find it ironic that you would call him a bigot given that his father stood out in the Democratic Party for being just the opposite because so many in the party were open bigots. As for the "kook" epithet, I admire him for at least trying to engage in the science rather than just accepting the corporate-party line like so many other Democrats. And I would argue that this is way more kooky and damaging, not to mention evil, than anything RFK Jr might be accused of.

Interesting conversation

Zippergate said:

---

The answer is, of course, populism. Trump is vulgar, but anyone who despises him because he is "conservative" is just misinformed. He was a Democrat for most of his life and his policies as president were a mishmash of traditionally left and right ideas because deep down he's not an idealogue, he's a pragmatist. But he's a political outsider willing to take on entrenched interests and that is what we need. Don't like Trump? Fine, someone else then. I'd be thrilled if he would leave the political stage if we could replace him with someone with similar energy and will to break the Uniparty stranglehold.

Rather than hate on the populists in the Republican Party, it would be great if sensible liberals would form their own populist coalition and push back against the insanity. Even better if they'd find common cause with right-leaning populists, bring the whole thing to the center where most Americans are, and cleanse the system of the Uniparty.

I'm sure all of this is totally repugnant to most here who identify as Team Blue. But I ask you, would any of you be willing to vote for a Republican? I'd vote for RFK Jr in a heartbeat (even though we have quite different world views) because I think he is an honest man who won't sell out to the establishment. He's the quintessential 60's liberal so I find it fascinating that he is attacked primarily from the left, not the right. It's also interesting that he shares a number of views that align with Trump populists. It's because the Democratic Party has abandoned their raison d'etre and become a cabal of semi-authoritarian, neocon, kleptocratic social Jacobins.

---

What would populism from the left look like? Where is the center left? If there's one word to describe this group over the last 7 years, it's "missing". If you subscribe to the idea that the Overton Window has shifted to the left, then those who were center left most of their lives now find themselves on the right simply by staying in place. This may explain why people like RFK Jr. appeal more to those on the right while the left view him with suspicion even though he's been a Democrat his entire life.

Then what do you have left on the left? Extremists who disguise themselves as moderates.

calbear93 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

There is nothing more hilarious than liberal "expert" going into a liberal safe space and explaining why Republicans are really bad or a conservative "expert" going to a conservative safe space explaining why Dems are really bad. It is all just opinion couched as "fact" or "history". All in in an environment where there is 0% chance they'll be challenged or forced to answer tough questions. And in this case, there's a reason historians are really bad when it comes to discussing current events.

Sadly, there are rare people (and even fewer pundits) who genuinely attempt to explain and understand (with a certain level of empathy) what motivates people who think differently then them/their political opponents. Ken Burns is not one of those people.

And Steve Schmidt is one of the biggest grifters out there. The Lincoln Project has paid massive "consulting fees" to its founders. That Ken Burns - a supposed historian of repute - would even choose to go on that venue speaks volumes about his lack of judgement and impartiality. TDS at its worst.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/us/politics/lincoln-project-steve-schmidt-resigns.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/08/us/politics/lincoln-project-weaver.html

---

Ken Burns has been publicly anti-Trump for years.

---

Yes - I'm aware of that. And what non-liberal save space venue has he appeared in to have his views challenged? Burns was calling Trump Hitler before Trump had even been inaugerated. https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/10/ken-burns-donald-trump

For that matter what academic works has he actually produced to justify his view. None.

He (and other liberal historians) tend to couch their political preferences as science and then expect people to give his opinions credence. This should be referred to as the Paul Krugman maneuver - using academic pedigree to make some pretty outlandish claims, which are really just political opinions/rhetoric. How man historians have told us that, "historically speaking", Trump is Hitler; yet ignore the very serious authoritarian and anti-liberal policies and actions of Biden? Pretty much all of them.

And Burns choice of venue in this case shows he's a clown and doesn't care about his own academic credibility. That's my point.

Big C said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Both parties have changed and changed dramatically.

Kennedy's Dem party would pass for Republican today. Bill Clinton couldn't get elected today. It was only 14 years ago that Barack Obama was in favor of domestic partnerships but not gay marriage.

Reagan and Trump really couldn't be much different (frankly, a lot of MAGA domestic and foreign policy feels rather Democratish circa 1950's-1980s).

The one way both parties is the same is the both fundamentally care about one thing and one thing only above all else: gaining and retaining political power.

---

I'm not sure I agree with you line for line, but your last sentence is spot on. What we need right now is to unify around a platform independent of the two main parties. Right now pretty much anybody that runs as an independent has a decent chance if they play it right.

There are things that both sides can agree on as a platform:

• Money in politics = corruption in politics
• Better Jobs for Americans
• Lower taxes on the middle class
• Raise taxes on the super wealthy
• Law and order
• Fair and accountable elections
• Get rid of corruption and politics in the higher courts
• Protect the environment
• Develop energy locally
• human rights
• lower the military budget (stop paying for illegal wars and hold the pentagon accountable financially)
• Government stay out of our private lives
• Break ties with global elites so they can't control our economy, culture and politics
• Honor the constitution and Democracy
• Stop welfare for the wealthy and able
• Universal health care
• Minimum wage
• Protect social security
• Improve education
• improve mental health access
• Keep guns out of the hands of dangerous and/or mentally ill people
• Deal with poverty and homelessness
• Reduce the cost of housing and health care

These are the things that most Americans both conservative and Liberal believe in. Despite what the media reports, these things poll well continuously across a cross section of America.

---

That's a good list, I'd like to add the following (from Victor David Hanson)

• Not allowing biological men to compete in women's sports.
• Making it illegal to fire anyone for saying there are only two genders
• Preventing 2.3 million people illegally entering the country each year.
• Eliminating month-long elections and reducing the 70% mail in ballot number.
• Holding BLM and Antifa accountable for destroying neighborhoods, causing $2 billion in damage.
• Holding the FBI, DOJ, and the corporate media accountable for framing Donald Trump as a Russian agent to rig the 2016 election.
• Holding the CIA and the corporate media accountable for claiming that Hunter Biden's laptop was "Russian disinformation" to rig the 2020 election.
• Holding the FBI and DOJ accountable for hiding Hunter Biden's laptop, containing evidence of FARA violations, money laundering, and foreign bribes, to help Joe Biden become POTUS.
• Holding the DHS, CISA, and the White House accountable for working with Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to censor American citizens.

---

Yeah, if we could just get most Americans to come to a consensus on those 33 simple bullet points (combined from above two posts), our problems would be solvable!

---

It's interesting to compare the list of actual policies that would benefit the American people on the first list from the left vs. the list of victimhood grievances on the second list from the right.

It's a pretty accurate depiction of what the 2024 election is about.

BearGoggles said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

There is nothing more hilarious than liberal "expert" going into a liberal safe space and explaining why Republicans are really bad or a conservative "expert" going to a conservative safe space explaining why Dems are really bad. It is all just opinion couched as "fact" or "history". All in in an environment where there is 0% chance they'll be challenged or forced to answer tough questions. And in this case, there's a reason historians are really bad when it comes to discussing current events.

Sadly, there are rare people (and even fewer pundits) who genuinely attempt to explain and understand (with a certain level of empathy) what motivates people who think differently then them/their political opponents. Ken Burns is not one of those people.

And Steve Schmidt is one of the biggest grifters out there. The Lincoln Project has paid massive "consulting fees" to its founders. That Ken Burns - a supposed historian of repute - would even choose to go on that venue speaks volumes about his lack of judgement and impartiality. TDS at its worst.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/us/politics/lincoln-project-steve-schmidt-resigns.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/08/us/politics/lincoln-project-weaver.html

---

Ken Burns has been publicly anti-Trump for years.

---

Yes - I'm aware of that. And what non-liberal save space venue has he appeared in to have his views challenged? Burns was calling Trump Hitler before Trump had even been inaugerated. https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/10/ken-burns-donald-trump

For that matter what academic works has he actually produced to justify his view. None.

He (and other liberal historians) tend to couch their political preferences as science and then expect people to give his opinions credence. This should be referred to as the Paul Krugman maneuver - using academic pedigree to make some pretty outlandish claims, which are really just political opinions/rhetoric. How man historians have told us that, "historically speaking", Trump is Hitler; yet ignore the very serious authoritarian and anti-liberal policies and actions of Biden? Pretty much all of them.

And Burns choice of venue in this case shows he's a clown and doesn't care about his own academic credibility. That's my point.

---

I did like his work on Civil War and Baseball.

https://www.threads.net/@ben.stillwater/post/CwlfD4xP3LN/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

calbear93 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

There is nothing more hilarious than liberal "expert" going into a liberal safe space and explaining why Republicans are really bad or a conservative "expert" going to a conservative safe space explaining why Dems are really bad. It is all just opinion couched as "fact" or "history". All in in an environment where there is 0% chance they'll be challenged or forced to answer tough questions. And in this case, there's a reason historians are really bad when it comes to discussing current events.

Sadly, there are rare people (and even fewer pundits) who genuinely attempt to explain and understand (with a certain level of empathy) what motivates people who think differently then them/their political opponents. Ken Burns is not one of those people.

And Steve Schmidt is one of the biggest grifters out there. The Lincoln Project has paid massive "consulting fees" to its founders. That Ken Burns - a supposed historian of repute - would even choose to go on that venue speaks volumes about his lack of judgement and impartiality. TDS at its worst.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/us/politics/lincoln-project-steve-schmidt-resigns.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/08/us/politics/lincoln-project-weaver.html

---

Ken Burns has been publicly anti-Trump for years.

---

Yes - I'm aware of that. And what non-liberal save space venue has he appeared in to have his views challenged? Burns was calling Trump Hitler before Trump had even been inaugerated. https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/10/ken-burns-donald-trump

For that matter what academic works has he actually produced to justify his view. None.

He (and other liberal historians) tend to couch their political preferences as science and then expect people to give his opinions credence. This should be referred to as the Paul Krugman maneuver - using academic pedigree to make some pretty outlandish claims, which are really just political opinions/rhetoric. How man historians have told us that, "historically speaking", Trump is Hitler; yet ignore the very serious authoritarian and anti-liberal policies and actions of Biden? Pretty much all of them.

And Burns choice of venue in this case shows he's a clown and doesn't care about his own academic credibility. That's my point.

---

I did like his work on Civil War and Baseball.

---

Yes - those were both excellent, particularly the civil war.

dimitrig said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

But there is something we can do. Remember, both parties fundamentally care about obtaining and retaining power. That is their Achilles heel. As long as people continue to accept that our only choices are the lesser of two evils, nothing changes. We can refuse to vote or we can start voting in different ways. It is just a numbers game...enough of us need to do something different and the two parties will change. IMO Republicans are more likely to change first, mostly because (IMO) they are a rudderless group that mostly doesn't even pretend to have core values any longer.

---

Refusing to vote wouldn't be a great way to effect change unless it came with armed revolution.

---

The GOP is counting on low turnout because it's the only path it has to nationwide victory. Trump's 2016 campaign was extremely successful at suppressing democratic votes through a crackerjack digital team with an assist from Cambridge Analytics. They are doing everything within their power, and a number of things not within their power - see Trump's many legal problems and 0-80 or whatever in lawsuits, in order to prevent people from voting.

Vivek R., who seems to be running to be Trump's running mate, wants to amend the constitution to limit voting rights for people under 25.

They. don't. want. people. to. vote.

If people who voted were reflective of the actual populaton (eg not skewed toward older, whiter, wealthier voters), our government would function far differently and would have a much different composition. And the GOP would have to massively change because as currently constituted it would have no chance.

The most unhinged nonsense yet from U2S and that's saying something. And multiple people here think this Baghdad Bob level propaganda is worthy of a star. Stunning.

You guys are gonna love this!

https://trendingpoliticsnews.com/watch-tucker-exposes-cnn-hosts-as-mouthpieces-for-intelligence-agencies-mace/

P.S. "This has all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation." Russia, Russia, Russia!!!

Zippergate said:

---

The most unhinged nonsense yet from U2S and that's saying something. And multiple people here think this Baghdad Bob level propaganda is worthy of a star. Stunning.

You guys are gonna love this!

https://trendingpoliticsnews.com/watch-tucker-exposes-cnn-hosts-as-mouthpieces-for-intelligence-agencies-mace/

P.S. "This has all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation." Russia, Russia, Russia!!!

---

calbear93 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

That's not a unifying list

---

Neither of the two lists is unifying.

I can agree with many from each list and disagree with the rest.

Others will disagree with my list.

All we can do is hold a debate on why I choose certain items on each list and then we each go to vote.

Unless its an election of Trump vs. Biden.


Areas of disagreement for me:

Raise taxes on the super wealthy
- the problem with statement like this is that "super wealthy" is always those above their own tax bracket. Justify to me why your taxes should not go up exponentially. On a global perspective, are you really just getting by?

lower the military budget (stop paying for illegal wars and hold the pentagon accountable financially)
- the problem with this is that we want to protect our world order where Putins of the world cannot just bully weaker countries but do so without the necessary military. If the standard for cutting budget is due to inefficiency, then everything should be cut and you have become a Republican.

Break ties with global elites so they can't control our economy, culture and politics
- the problem is like taxes. who are the global elite? this type of class war is the heart of what got Trump elected. Why does it have to be a class war or education war instead of argument about policy? Much easier to hate a group than to debate policy

Stop welfare for the wealthy and able
- who is wealthy? Assume this is meant to address tax breaks for corporation. the tax breaks are intended not as a hand out but a means of control in areas that they otherwise under the constitution (other than through negative commerce clause) legislate. For example, tax breaks under CHIPS to incentivize investment in US semi-conductor manufacturing. Seems like welfare but good for the country and national security. Etc. We can also argue about who is able. The right argues that there is too much welfare for those who are able to work but choose not to.

Deal with poverty and homelessness
- no one wants more poverty or homelessness. but it is a question of how we go about it and to what extent. and I think the liberal way of just allowing long-term homeless to stay homeless without some forced change is counterproductive and creates more homeless. as long as we have a merit-based economy, there will always be poverty. we can have poverty for all like Cuba or have a merit-based economy (we can then argue whether risk taking is merit but nothing is stopping you from taking the same risks).

Eliminating month-long elections and reducing the 70% mail in ballot number
- Republicans used to be more in favor of mail in ballots and long election to assist the military and older voters. Trump decided to build in an excuse and convinced his base not to vote by mail when it seemed like states that always had mail in votes (e.g. California even when it was purple) was somehow fraudulent for doing the same - why is anyone surprised that mail-in votes tilted toward Biden?

Holding the FBI, DOJ, and the corporate media accountable for framing Donald Trump as a Russian agent to rig the 2016 election.
- sounds like a liberal, criminal loving argument. I want our justice system to investigate when there is even slight probable cause. there was evidence. they needed to investigate to assess the worthiness of the evidence. they chose not to indict Trump on collusion with the Russians. it worked. no one is exempt from investigation, as clearly demonstrated by the Jordan committee.

Holding the corporate media accountable for claiming that Hunter Biden's laptop was "Russian disinformation" to rig the 2020 election.
-what would you like our DOJ to do about lying media like Foxnews and even their further right-right, further lying media? Or is it just media that does not report what the far right wants to hear?

Holding the FBI and DOJ accountable for hiding Hunter Biden's laptop, containing evidence of FARA violations, money laundering, and foreign bribes, to help Joe Biden become POTUS.
- if they were hiding the laptop, how do you know about its existence or content? Or do you think that they should release all evidence and all facts during a pending investigation? WOuld you have been happy if the FBI did that with the Trumps prior to indictment or conclusion of the investigation?

Holding the DHS, CISA, and the White House accountable for working with Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to censor American citizens.
- apparently agency cannot investigate corporations for ensuring compliance with applicable law? DOJ, SEC, FTC, etc. are always trying to influence behavior. All those compliance programs are mainly based on not just national securities exchange listing standards but also sentencing guidelines and guidance on when and how these agencies will investigate and enforce. if they viewed those platforms as spreading destructive messages (1st amendment does not allow you to scream fire in a crowded theater) or propaganda from Russia/China, they can investigate. Kind of like how the Jordan committee wants to investigate everything.

---

I appreciate the care and consideration you put into this but I have to disagree on quite a few assumption you've made:

ON TAXING THE WEALTHY

• A tax increase would be on the .05% or whatever is agreed upon. So, those that fall into that bracket would change each year. So it can't be set to be automatically above wherever I am because it changes every year.
• I am spending more than I make so, yeah, I'm not making it and my taxes have been steadily increasing over my lifetime just like the rest of the middle class
• Many of the super wealthy agree with a tax increase on them. Warren Buffet was quoted as saying that there has been a class war over the last 25 years and the wealthy won. What do you suppose he meant by that?
• The idea of raising taxes on the super wealthy is that it doesn't hurt them as much. Listen, if you have money to hire a bunch of lobbyists and or continually pour in large amounts of money in order to buy influence, you make enough to have your taxes raised.

THE MILITARY BUDGET

• Your comments are entirely opinions: It is widely recognized by economists and even by the Pentagon that there is gross overspending and lack of accountability. You could cut the military budget in half and still have more than enough money to help Ukraine and do whatever else is necessary to protect the country. This has been widely studied for years by experts.
• To say that everything in government is similar to the Pentagon on inefficiency is ridiculous. Other things like Medicaid and Social security get audited regularly but the Pentagon has refused to be audited. Many programs are forced to be efficient but not the military.
• Over the last 50 years, complaints about the federal budget and overspending have led to cuts in almost every area of life. Meanwhile the Pentagon budget continues to skyrocket unchecked.

ON WELFARE

• The US government not only subsidizes for the reasons you mention. They also subsidize because they are too big to fail, meaning that they have monopolized the industry and must be bailed out. This is directly due to our government not having the guts to regulate monopolies.

ON THE HOMELESS

• Your ideas about what liberals believe is fascinating to me. I have never believed in that. I donate $1500/yr. to the homeless project in Santa Cruz so that they don't remain homeless. I think this is typical of most liberal attitudes about homelessness.
• Also, we don't live in a merit based economy. Where there are problems with justice, there are problems with merit. Just ask African Americans and/or native Americans. And it's not just minorities. Throughout our history unjust economic policies and labor practices have engineered privilege to certain groups and impoverished others. Dream on. Listen, I know you love America and everything, but stop deluding yourself that your experience represents what America is and has been.

THE REST OF YOUR COMMENTS

• I can't believe you even bothered to respond to the other list, which is blatantly partisan and doesn't represent the interests of most Americans
• I can't believe you responded to the 2 lists together as if each is equally credible. That's a real slam on me. I don't know if it is intentional, but it wouldn't be the first time that your comments come off a bit passive aggressive even though they seem intellectually sophisticated.

Listen, I am trying to bring us together, get beyond partisan politics and address some issues, although I should have mentioned climate change and didn't. If you want to re-arrange deck chairs while the titanic is sinking, fine, go ahead. That is what you comments above are. They do nothing to move us forward and address issues. They are a bunch of hand wringing over how complicated solving problems is. Fine, go ahead.

I'm going to continue doing what I'm doing and ignore you. Or you can join me. It's up to you.

heartofthebear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

That's not a unifying list

---

Neither of the two lists is unifying.

I can agree with many from each list and disagree with the rest.

Others will disagree with my list.

All we can do is hold a debate on why I choose certain items on each list and then we each go to vote.

Unless its an election of Trump vs. Biden.


Areas of disagreement for me:

Raise taxes on the super wealthy
- the problem with statement like this is that "super wealthy" is always those above their own tax bracket. Justify to me why your taxes should not go up exponentially. On a global perspective, are you really just getting by?

lower the military budget (stop paying for illegal wars and hold the pentagon accountable financially)
- the problem with this is that we want to protect our world order where Putins of the world cannot just bully weaker countries but do so without the necessary military. If the standard for cutting budget is due to inefficiency, then everything should be cut and you have become a Republican.

Break ties with global elites so they can't control our economy, culture and politics
- the problem is like taxes. who are the global elite? this type of class war is the heart of what got Trump elected. Why does it have to be a class war or education war instead of argument about policy? Much easier to hate a group than to debate policy

Stop welfare for the wealthy and able
- who is wealthy? Assume this is meant to address tax breaks for corporation. the tax breaks are intended not as a hand out but a means of control in areas that they otherwise under the constitution (other than through negative commerce clause) legislate. For example, tax breaks under CHIPS to incentivize investment in US semi-conductor manufacturing. Seems like welfare but good for the country and national security. Etc. We can also argue about who is able. The right argues that there is too much welfare for those who are able to work but choose not to.

Deal with poverty and homelessness
- no one wants more poverty or homelessness. but it is a question of how we go about it and to what extent. and I think the liberal way of just allowing long-term homeless to stay homeless without some forced change is counterproductive and creates more homeless. as long as we have a merit-based economy, there will always be poverty. we can have poverty for all like Cuba or have a merit-based economy (we can then argue whether risk taking is merit but nothing is stopping you from taking the same risks).

Eliminating month-long elections and reducing the 70% mail in ballot number
- Republicans used to be more in favor of mail in ballots and long election to assist the military and older voters. Trump decided to build in an excuse and convinced his base not to vote by mail when it seemed like states that always had mail in votes (e.g. California even when it was purple) was somehow fraudulent for doing the same - why is anyone surprised that mail-in votes tilted toward Biden?

Holding the FBI, DOJ, and the corporate media accountable for framing Donald Trump as a Russian agent to rig the 2016 election.
- sounds like a liberal, criminal loving argument. I want our justice system to investigate when there is even slight probable cause. there was evidence. they needed to investigate to assess the worthiness of the evidence. they chose not to indict Trump on collusion with the Russians. it worked. no one is exempt from investigation, as clearly demonstrated by the Jordan committee.

Holding the corporate media accountable for claiming that Hunter Biden's laptop was "Russian disinformation" to rig the 2020 election.
-what would you like our DOJ to do about lying media like Foxnews and even their further right-right, further lying media? Or is it just media that does not report what the far right wants to hear?

Holding the FBI and DOJ accountable for hiding Hunter Biden's laptop, containing evidence of FARA violations, money laundering, and foreign bribes, to help Joe Biden become POTUS.
- if they were hiding the laptop, how do you know about its existence or content? Or do you think that they should release all evidence and all facts during a pending investigation? WOuld you have been happy if the FBI did that with the Trumps prior to indictment or conclusion of the investigation?

Holding the DHS, CISA, and the White House accountable for working with Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to censor American citizens.
- apparently agency cannot investigate corporations for ensuring compliance with applicable law? DOJ, SEC, FTC, etc. are always trying to influence behavior. All those compliance programs are mainly based on not just national securities exchange listing standards but also sentencing guidelines and guidance on when and how these agencies will investigate and enforce. if they viewed those platforms as spreading destructive messages (1st amendment does not allow you to scream fire in a crowded theater) or propaganda from Russia/China, they can investigate. Kind of like how the Jordan committee wants to investigate everything.

---

I appreciate the care and consideration you put into this but I have to disagree on quite a few assumption you've made:

ON TAXING THE WEALTHY

• A tax increase would be on the .05% or whatever is agreed upon. So, those that fall into that bracket would change each year. So it can't be set to be automatically above wherever I am because it changes every year.
• I am spending more than I make so, yeah, I'm not making it and my taxes have been steadily increasing over my lifetime just like the rest of the middle class
• Many of the super wealthy agree with a tax increase on them. Warren Buffet was quoted as saying that there has been a class war over the last 25 years and the wealthy won. What do you suppose he meant by that?
• The idea of raising taxes on the super wealthy is that it doesn't hurt them as much. Listen, if you have money to hire a bunch of lobbyists and or continually pour in large amounts of money in order to buy influence, you make enough to have your taxes raised.

THE MILITARY BUDGET

• Your comments are entirely opinions: It is widely recognized by economists and even by the Pentagon that there is gross overspending and lack of accountability. You could cut the military budget in half and still have more than enough money to help Ukraine and do whatever else is necessary to protect the country. This has been widely studied for years by experts.
• To say that everything in government is similar to the Pentagon on inefficiency is ridiculous. Other things like Medicaid and Social security get audited regularly but the Pentagon has refused to be audited. Many programs are forced to be efficient but not the military.
• Over the last 50 years, complaints about the federal budget and overspending have led to cuts in almost every area of life. Meanwhile the Pentagon budget continues to skyrocket unchecked.

ON WELFARE

• The US government not only subsidizes for the reasons you mention. They also subsidize because they are too big to fail, meaning that they have monopolized the industry and must be bailed out. This is directly due to our government not having the guts to regulate monopolies.

ON THE HOMELESS

• Your ideas about what liberals believe is fascinating to me. I have never believed in that. I donate $1500/yr. to the homeless project in Santa Cruz so that they don't remain homeless. I think this is typical of most liberal attitudes about homelessness.
• Also, we don't live in a merit based economy. Where there are problems with justice, there are problems with merit. Just ask African Americans and/or native Americans. And it's not just minorities. Throughout our history unjust economic policies and labor practices have engineered privilege to certain groups and impoverished others. Dream on. Listen, I know you love America and everything, but stop deluding yourself that your experience represents what America is and has been.

THE REST OF YOUR COMMENTS

• I can't believe you even bothered to respond to the other list, which is blatantly partisan and doesn't represent the interests of most Americans
• I can't believe you responded to the 2 lists together as if each is equally credible. That's a real slam on me. I don't know if it is intentional, but it wouldn't be the first time that your comments come off a bit passive aggressive even though they seem intellectually sophisticated.

Listen, I am trying to bring us together, get beyond partisan politics and address some issues, although I should have mentioned climate change and didn't. If you want to re-arrange deck chairs while the titanic is sinking, fine, go ahead. That is what you comments above are. They do nothing to move us forward and address issues. They are a bunch of hand wringing over how complicated solving problems is. Fine, go ahead.

I'm going to continue doing what I'm doing and ignore you. Or you can join me. It's up to you.

---

Nothing you wrote is unifying but is entirely partisan and conclusory offering opinions as facts. But because you are partisan, you think it's unifying. So please feel free to continue to ignore me.

Taxes. Why just 0.05% and not you? Why doesn't it hurt them but it hurts you? Because you say so?

What the hell are you writing about the military? Cut the budget in half and we can still help Ukraine? Is that all we need to do for world security? Such breathtaking expertise and refined thinking. Surprise they don't make you Secretary of Defense. And if they are never audited, how do you know they are not efficient? And SS and Medicare efficient? No Medicare fraud, right? Government efficient? How much of the unemployment during COVID was lost due to fraud? You giving money for homeless means the laws in liberal cities are not in place to make it harder to force homeless into shelters? What?! Yes, to have an efficient economy and avoid inflation, you need unemployment and some poverty. Basic economic fact. And the other lists are outrageous and unworthy because they don't align with your partisan beliefs? Very unifying. So yes, please ignore me and keep deluding yourself that you are not partisan. Provide one concession to the other side's concerns and you may have some credibility. But your idea of unifying is everyone unifying to your liberal beliefs. Sorry but not mentioning climate change does not make you nonpartisan.

calbear93 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

That's not a unifying list

---

Neither of the two lists is unifying.

I can agree with many from each list and disagree with the rest.

Others will disagree with my list.

All we can do is hold a debate on why I choose certain items on each list and then we each go to vote.

Unless its an election of Trump vs. Biden.


Areas of disagreement for me:

Raise taxes on the super wealthy
- the problem with statement like this is that "super wealthy" is always those above their own tax bracket. Justify to me why your taxes should not go up exponentially. On a global perspective, are you really just getting by?

lower the military budget (stop paying for illegal wars and hold the pentagon accountable financially)
- the problem with this is that we want to protect our world order where Putins of the world cannot just bully weaker countries but do so without the necessary military. If the standard for cutting budget is due to inefficiency, then everything should be cut and you have become a Republican.

Break ties with global elites so they can't control our economy, culture and politics
- the problem is like taxes. who are the global elite? this type of class war is the heart of what got Trump elected. Why does it have to be a class war or education war instead of argument about policy? Much easier to hate a group than to debate policy

Stop welfare for the wealthy and able
- who is wealthy? Assume this is meant to address tax breaks for corporation. the tax breaks are intended not as a hand out but a means of control in areas that they otherwise under the constitution (other than through negative commerce clause) legislate. For example, tax breaks under CHIPS to incentivize investment in US semi-conductor manufacturing. Seems like welfare but good for the country and national security. Etc. We can also argue about who is able. The right argues that there is too much welfare for those who are able to work but choose not to.

Deal with poverty and homelessness
- no one wants more poverty or homelessness. but it is a question of how we go about it and to what extent. and I think the liberal way of just allowing long-term homeless to stay homeless without some forced change is counterproductive and creates more homeless. as long as we have a merit-based economy, there will always be poverty. we can have poverty for all like Cuba or have a merit-based economy (we can then argue whether risk taking is merit but nothing is stopping you from taking the same risks).

Eliminating month-long elections and reducing the 70% mail in ballot number
- Republicans used to be more in favor of mail in ballots and long election to assist the military and older voters. Trump decided to build in an excuse and convinced his base not to vote by mail when it seemed like states that always had mail in votes (e.g. California even when it was purple) was somehow fraudulent for doing the same - why is anyone surprised that mail-in votes tilted toward Biden?

Holding the FBI, DOJ, and the corporate media accountable for framing Donald Trump as a Russian agent to rig the 2016 election.
- sounds like a liberal, criminal loving argument. I want our justice system to investigate when there is even slight probable cause. there was evidence. they needed to investigate to assess the worthiness of the evidence. they chose not to indict Trump on collusion with the Russians. it worked. no one is exempt from investigation, as clearly demonstrated by the Jordan committee.

Holding the corporate media accountable for claiming that Hunter Biden's laptop was "Russian disinformation" to rig the 2020 election.
-what would you like our DOJ to do about lying media like Foxnews and even their further right-right, further lying media? Or is it just media that does not report what the far right wants to hear?

Holding the FBI and DOJ accountable for hiding Hunter Biden's laptop, containing evidence of FARA violations, money laundering, and foreign bribes, to help Joe Biden become POTUS.
- if they were hiding the laptop, how do you know about its existence or content? Or do you think that they should release all evidence and all facts during a pending investigation? WOuld you have been happy if the FBI did that with the Trumps prior to indictment or conclusion of the investigation?

Holding the DHS, CISA, and the White House accountable for working with Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to censor American citizens.
- apparently agency cannot investigate corporations for ensuring compliance with applicable law? DOJ, SEC, FTC, etc. are always trying to influence behavior. All those compliance programs are mainly based on not just national securities exchange listing standards but also sentencing guidelines and guidance on when and how these agencies will investigate and enforce. if they viewed those platforms as spreading destructive messages (1st amendment does not allow you to scream fire in a crowded theater) or propaganda from Russia/China, they can investigate. Kind of like how the Jordan committee wants to investigate everything.

---

I appreciate the care and consideration you put into this but I have to disagree on quite a few assumption you've made:

ON TAXING THE WEALTHY

• A tax increase would be on the .05% or whatever is agreed upon. So, those that fall into that bracket would change each year. So it can't be set to be automatically above wherever I am because it changes every year.
• I am spending more than I make so, yeah, I'm not making it and my taxes have been steadily increasing over my lifetime just like the rest of the middle class
• Many of the super wealthy agree with a tax increase on them. Warren Buffet was quoted as saying that there has been a class war over the last 25 years and the wealthy won. What do you suppose he meant by that?
• The idea of raising taxes on the super wealthy is that it doesn't hurt them as much. Listen, if you have money to hire a bunch of lobbyists and or continually pour in large amounts of money in order to buy influence, you make enough to have your taxes raised.

THE MILITARY BUDGET

• Your comments are entirely opinions: It is widely recognized by economists and even by the Pentagon that there is gross overspending and lack of accountability. You could cut the military budget in half and still have more than enough money to help Ukraine and do whatever else is necessary to protect the country. This has been widely studied for years by experts.
• To say that everything in government is similar to the Pentagon on inefficiency is ridiculous. Other things like Medicaid and Social security get audited regularly but the Pentagon has refused to be audited. Many programs are forced to be efficient but not the military.
• Over the last 50 years, complaints about the federal budget and overspending have led to cuts in almost every area of life. Meanwhile the Pentagon budget continues to skyrocket unchecked.

ON WELFARE

• The US government not only subsidizes for the reasons you mention. They also subsidize because they are too big to fail, meaning that they have monopolized the industry and must be bailed out. This is directly due to our government not having the guts to regulate monopolies.

ON THE HOMELESS

• Your ideas about what liberals believe is fascinating to me. I have never believed in that. I donate $1500/yr. to the homeless project in Santa Cruz so that they don't remain homeless. I think this is typical of most liberal attitudes about homelessness.
• Also, we don't live in a merit based economy. Where there are problems with justice, there are problems with merit. Just ask African Americans and/or native Americans. And it's not just minorities. Throughout our history unjust economic policies and labor practices have engineered privilege to certain groups and impoverished others. Dream on. Listen, I know you love America and everything, but stop deluding yourself that your experience represents what America is and has been.

THE REST OF YOUR COMMENTS

• I can't believe you even bothered to respond to the other list, which is blatantly partisan and doesn't represent the interests of most Americans
• I can't believe you responded to the 2 lists together as if each is equally credible. That's a real slam on me. I don't know if it is intentional, but it wouldn't be the first time that your comments come off a bit passive aggressive even though they seem intellectually sophisticated.

Listen, I am trying to bring us together, get beyond partisan politics and address some issues, although I should have mentioned climate change and didn't. If you want to re-arrange deck chairs while the titanic is sinking, fine, go ahead. That is what you comments above are. They do nothing to move us forward and address issues. They are a bunch of hand wringing over how complicated solving problems is. Fine, go ahead.

I'm going to continue doing what I'm doing and ignore you. Or you can join me. It's up to you.

---

Nothing you wrote is unifying but is entirely partisan and conclusory offering opinions as facts. But because you are partisan, you think it's unifying. So please feel free to continue to ignore me.

Taxes. Why just 0.05% and not you? Why doesn't it hurt them but it hurts you? Because you say so?

What the hell are you writing about the military? Cut the budget in half and we can still help Ukraine? Is that all we need to do for world security? Such breathtaking expertise and refined thinking. Surprise they don't make you Secretary of Defense. And if they are never audited, how do you know they are not efficient? And SS and Medicare efficient? No Medicare fraud, right? Government efficient? How much of the unemployment during COVID was lost due to fraud? You giving money for homeless means the laws in liberal cities are not in place to make it harder to force homeless into shelters? What?! Yes, to have an efficient economy and avoid inflation, you need unemployment and some poverty. Basic economic fact. And the other lists are outrageous and unworthy because they don't align with your partisan beliefs? Very unifying. So yes, please ignore me and keep deluding yourself that you are not partisan. Provide one concession to the other side's concerns and you may have some credibility. But your idea of unifying is everyone unifying to your liberal beliefs. Sorry but not mentioning climate change does not make you nonpartisan.

---

If I'm partisan than most of America is with me. The list I formulated are common populist positions on those issues. I'm not interested in concessions to unify everybody. I'm interested in unifying the true majority on the issues where there is a clear and consistent majority. To do this, we would have to move beyond partisan politics and move on the issue directly without paying attention to how the media portrays them.

I suspect you think they are partisan because that is how the media portrays them. You ever actually met anybody that wants to cut social security? They are rare.

Also, maybe I am partisan but I'm making an attempt to move beyond that. It won't include everyone. It won't include you. But I don't care about that. I want it to include most people. That's what Democracy is all about, moving on the issues that primarily effect most people. But I'm not counting on the Democratic party for that.

heartofthebear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

That's not a unifying list

---

Neither of the two lists is unifying.

I can agree with many from each list and disagree with the rest.

Others will disagree with my list.

All we can do is hold a debate on why I choose certain items on each list and then we each go to vote.

Unless its an election of Trump vs. Biden.


Areas of disagreement for me:

Raise taxes on the super wealthy
- the problem with statement like this is that "super wealthy" is always those above their own tax bracket. Justify to me why your taxes should not go up exponentially. On a global perspective, are you really just getting by?

lower the military budget (stop paying for illegal wars and hold the pentagon accountable financially)
- the problem with this is that we want to protect our world order where Putins of the world cannot just bully weaker countries but do so without the necessary military. If the standard for cutting budget is due to inefficiency, then everything should be cut and you have become a Republican.

Break ties with global elites so they can't control our economy, culture and politics
- the problem is like taxes. who are the global elite? this type of class war is the heart of what got Trump elected. Why does it have to be a class war or education war instead of argument about policy? Much easier to hate a group than to debate policy

Stop welfare for the wealthy and able
- who is wealthy? Assume this is meant to address tax breaks for corporation. the tax breaks are intended not as a hand out but a means of control in areas that they otherwise under the constitution (other than through negative commerce clause) legislate. For example, tax breaks under CHIPS to incentivize investment in US semi-conductor manufacturing. Seems like welfare but good for the country and national security. Etc. We can also argue about who is able. The right argues that there is too much welfare for those who are able to work but choose not to.

Deal with poverty and homelessness
- no one wants more poverty or homelessness. but it is a question of how we go about it and to what extent. and I think the liberal way of just allowing long-term homeless to stay homeless without some forced change is counterproductive and creates more homeless. as long as we have a merit-based economy, there will always be poverty. we can have poverty for all like Cuba or have a merit-based economy (we can then argue whether risk taking is merit but nothing is stopping you from taking the same risks).

Eliminating month-long elections and reducing the 70% mail in ballot number
- Republicans used to be more in favor of mail in ballots and long election to assist the military and older voters. Trump decided to build in an excuse and convinced his base not to vote by mail when it seemed like states that always had mail in votes (e.g. California even when it was purple) was somehow fraudulent for doing the same - why is anyone surprised that mail-in votes tilted toward Biden?

Holding the FBI, DOJ, and the corporate media accountable for framing Donald Trump as a Russian agent to rig the 2016 election.
- sounds like a liberal, criminal loving argument. I want our justice system to investigate when there is even slight probable cause. there was evidence. they needed to investigate to assess the worthiness of the evidence. they chose not to indict Trump on collusion with the Russians. it worked. no one is exempt from investigation, as clearly demonstrated by the Jordan committee.

Holding the corporate media accountable for claiming that Hunter Biden's laptop was "Russian disinformation" to rig the 2020 election.
-what would you like our DOJ to do about lying media like Foxnews and even their further right-right, further lying media? Or is it just media that does not report what the far right wants to hear?

Holding the FBI and DOJ accountable for hiding Hunter Biden's laptop, containing evidence of FARA violations, money laundering, and foreign bribes, to help Joe Biden become POTUS.
- if they were hiding the laptop, how do you know about its existence or content? Or do you think that they should release all evidence and all facts during a pending investigation? WOuld you have been happy if the FBI did that with the Trumps prior to indictment or conclusion of the investigation?

Holding the DHS, CISA, and the White House accountable for working with Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to censor American citizens.
- apparently agency cannot investigate corporations for ensuring compliance with applicable law? DOJ, SEC, FTC, etc. are always trying to influence behavior. All those compliance programs are mainly based on not just national securities exchange listing standards but also sentencing guidelines and guidance on when and how these agencies will investigate and enforce. if they viewed those platforms as spreading destructive messages (1st amendment does not allow you to scream fire in a crowded theater) or propaganda from Russia/China, they can investigate. Kind of like how the Jordan committee wants to investigate everything.

---

I appreciate the care and consideration you put into this but I have to disagree on quite a few assumption you've made:

ON TAXING THE WEALTHY

• A tax increase would be on the .05% or whatever is agreed upon. So, those that fall into that bracket would change each year. So it can't be set to be automatically above wherever I am because it changes every year.
• I am spending more than I make so, yeah, I'm not making it and my taxes have been steadily increasing over my lifetime just like the rest of the middle class
• Many of the super wealthy agree with a tax increase on them. Warren Buffet was quoted as saying that there has been a class war over the last 25 years and the wealthy won. What do you suppose he meant by that?
• The idea of raising taxes on the super wealthy is that it doesn't hurt them as much. Listen, if you have money to hire a bunch of lobbyists and or continually pour in large amounts of money in order to buy influence, you make enough to have your taxes raised.

THE MILITARY BUDGET

• Your comments are entirely opinions: It is widely recognized by economists and even by the Pentagon that there is gross overspending and lack of accountability. You could cut the military budget in half and still have more than enough money to help Ukraine and do whatever else is necessary to protect the country. This has been widely studied for years by experts.
• To say that everything in government is similar to the Pentagon on inefficiency is ridiculous. Other things like Medicaid and Social security get audited regularly but the Pentagon has refused to be audited. Many programs are forced to be efficient but not the military.
• Over the last 50 years, complaints about the federal budget and overspending have led to cuts in almost every area of life. Meanwhile the Pentagon budget continues to skyrocket unchecked.

ON WELFARE

• The US government not only subsidizes for the reasons you mention. They also subsidize because they are too big to fail, meaning that they have monopolized the industry and must be bailed out. This is directly due to our government not having the guts to regulate monopolies.

ON THE HOMELESS

• Your ideas about what liberals believe is fascinating to me. I have never believed in that. I donate $1500/yr. to the homeless project in Santa Cruz so that they don't remain homeless. I think this is typical of most liberal attitudes about homelessness.
• Also, we don't live in a merit based economy. Where there are problems with justice, there are problems with merit. Just ask African Americans and/or native Americans. And it's not just minorities. Throughout our history unjust economic policies and labor practices have engineered privilege to certain groups and impoverished others. Dream on. Listen, I know you love America and everything, but stop deluding yourself that your experience represents what America is and has been.

THE REST OF YOUR COMMENTS

• I can't believe you even bothered to respond to the other list, which is blatantly partisan and doesn't represent the interests of most Americans
• I can't believe you responded to the 2 lists together as if each is equally credible. That's a real slam on me. I don't know if it is intentional, but it wouldn't be the first time that your comments come off a bit passive aggressive even though they seem intellectually sophisticated.

Listen, I am trying to bring us together, get beyond partisan politics and address some issues, although I should have mentioned climate change and didn't. If you want to re-arrange deck chairs while the titanic is sinking, fine, go ahead. That is what you comments above are. They do nothing to move us forward and address issues. They are a bunch of hand wringing over how complicated solving problems is. Fine, go ahead.

I'm going to continue doing what I'm doing and ignore you. Or you can join me. It's up to you.

---

Nothing you wrote is unifying but is entirely partisan and conclusory offering opinions as facts. But because you are partisan, you think it's unifying. So please feel free to continue to ignore me.

Taxes. Why just 0.05% and not you? Why doesn't it hurt them but it hurts you? Because you say so?

What the hell are you writing about the military? Cut the budget in half and we can still help Ukraine? Is that all we need to do for world security? Such breathtaking expertise and refined thinking. Surprise they don't make you Secretary of Defense. And if they are never audited, how do you know they are not efficient? And SS and Medicare efficient? No Medicare fraud, right? Government efficient? How much of the unemployment during COVID was lost due to fraud? You giving money for homeless means the laws in liberal cities are not in place to make it harder to force homeless into shelters? What?! Yes, to have an efficient economy and avoid inflation, you need unemployment and some poverty. Basic economic fact. And the other lists are outrageous and unworthy because they don't align with your partisan beliefs? Very unifying. So yes, please ignore me and keep deluding yourself that you are not partisan. Provide one concession to the other side's concerns and you may have some credibility. But your idea of unifying is everyone unifying to your liberal beliefs. Sorry but not mentioning climate change does not make you nonpartisan.

---

If I'm partisan than most of America is with me. The list I formulated are common populist positions on those issues. I'm not interested in concessions to unify everybody. I'm interested in unifying the true majority on the issues where there is a clear and consistent majority. To do this, we would have to move beyond partisan politics and move on the issue directly without paying attention to how the media portrays them.

I suspect you think they are partisan because that is how the media portrays them. You ever actually met anybody that wants to cut social security? They are rare.

Also, maybe I am partisan but I'm making an attempt to move beyond that. It won't include everyone. It won't include you. But I don't care about that. I want it to include most people. That's what Democracy is all about, moving on the issues that primarily effect most people. But I'm not counting on the Democratic party for that.

Also, the other list was put in place to mock mine, not to unify. He had no intention of unifying. I did.

---

heartofthebear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

That's not a unifying list

---

Neither of the two lists is unifying.

I can agree with many from each list and disagree with the rest.

Others will disagree with my list.

All we can do is hold a debate on why I choose certain items on each list and then we each go to vote.

Unless its an election of Trump vs. Biden.


Areas of disagreement for me:

Raise taxes on the super wealthy
- the problem with statement like this is that "super wealthy" is always those above their own tax bracket. Justify to me why your taxes should not go up exponentially. On a global perspective, are you really just getting by?

lower the military budget (stop paying for illegal wars and hold the pentagon accountable financially)
- the problem with this is that we want to protect our world order where Putins of the world cannot just bully weaker countries but do so without the necessary military. If the standard for cutting budget is due to inefficiency, then everything should be cut and you have become a Republican.

Break ties with global elites so they can't control our economy, culture and politics
- the problem is like taxes. who are the global elite? this type of class war is the heart of what got Trump elected. Why does it have to be a class war or education war instead of argument about policy? Much easier to hate a group than to debate policy

Stop welfare for the wealthy and able
- who is wealthy? Assume this is meant to address tax breaks for corporation. the tax breaks are intended not as a hand out but a means of control in areas that they otherwise under the constitution (other than through negative commerce clause) legislate. For example, tax breaks under CHIPS to incentivize investment in US semi-conductor manufacturing. Seems like welfare but good for the country and national security. Etc. We can also argue about who is able. The right argues that there is too much welfare for those who are able to work but choose not to.

Deal with poverty and homelessness
- no one wants more poverty or homelessness. but it is a question of how we go about it and to what extent. and I think the liberal way of just allowing long-term homeless to stay homeless without some forced change is counterproductive and creates more homeless. as long as we have a merit-based economy, there will always be poverty. we can have poverty for all like Cuba or have a merit-based economy (we can then argue whether risk taking is merit but nothing is stopping you from taking the same risks).

Eliminating month-long elections and reducing the 70% mail in ballot number
- Republicans used to be more in favor of mail in ballots and long election to assist the military and older voters. Trump decided to build in an excuse and convinced his base not to vote by mail when it seemed like states that always had mail in votes (e.g. California even when it was purple) was somehow fraudulent for doing the same - why is anyone surprised that mail-in votes tilted toward Biden?

Holding the FBI, DOJ, and the corporate media accountable for framing Donald Trump as a Russian agent to rig the 2016 election.
- sounds like a liberal, criminal loving argument. I want our justice system to investigate when there is even slight probable cause. there was evidence. they needed to investigate to assess the worthiness of the evidence. they chose not to indict Trump on collusion with the Russians. it worked. no one is exempt from investigation, as clearly demonstrated by the Jordan committee.

Holding the corporate media accountable for claiming that Hunter Biden's laptop was "Russian disinformation" to rig the 2020 election.
-what would you like our DOJ to do about lying media like Foxnews and even their further right-right, further lying media? Or is it just media that does not report what the far right wants to hear?

Holding the FBI and DOJ accountable for hiding Hunter Biden's laptop, containing evidence of FARA violations, money laundering, and foreign bribes, to help Joe Biden become POTUS.
- if they were hiding the laptop, how do you know about its existence or content? Or do you think that they should release all evidence and all facts during a pending investigation? WOuld you have been happy if the FBI did that with the Trumps prior to indictment or conclusion of the investigation?

Holding the DHS, CISA, and the White House accountable for working with Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to censor American citizens.
- apparently agency cannot investigate corporations for ensuring compliance with applicable law? DOJ, SEC, FTC, etc. are always trying to influence behavior. All those compliance programs are mainly based on not just national securities exchange listing standards but also sentencing guidelines and guidance on when and how these agencies will investigate and enforce. if they viewed those platforms as spreading destructive messages (1st amendment does not allow you to scream fire in a crowded theater) or propaganda from Russia/China, they can investigate. Kind of like how the Jordan committee wants to investigate everything.

---

I appreciate the care and consideration you put into this but I have to disagree on quite a few assumption you've made:

ON TAXING THE WEALTHY

• A tax increase would be on the .05% or whatever is agreed upon. So, those that fall into that bracket would change each year. So it can't be set to be automatically above wherever I am because it changes every year.
• I am spending more than I make so, yeah, I'm not making it and my taxes have been steadily increasing over my lifetime just like the rest of the middle class
• Many of the super wealthy agree with a tax increase on them. Warren Buffet was quoted as saying that there has been a class war over the last 25 years and the wealthy won. What do you suppose he meant by that?
• The idea of raising taxes on the super wealthy is that it doesn't hurt them as much. Listen, if you have money to hire a bunch of lobbyists and or continually pour in large amounts of money in order to buy influence, you make enough to have your taxes raised.

THE MILITARY BUDGET

• Your comments are entirely opinions: It is widely recognized by economists and even by the Pentagon that there is gross overspending and lack of accountability. You could cut the military budget in half and still have more than enough money to help Ukraine and do whatever else is necessary to protect the country. This has been widely studied for years by experts.
• To say that everything in government is similar to the Pentagon on inefficiency is ridiculous. Other things like Medicaid and Social security get audited regularly but the Pentagon has refused to be audited. Many programs are forced to be efficient but not the military.
• Over the last 50 years, complaints about the federal budget and overspending have led to cuts in almost every area of life. Meanwhile the Pentagon budget continues to skyrocket unchecked.

ON WELFARE

• The US government not only subsidizes for the reasons you mention. They also subsidize because they are too big to fail, meaning that they have monopolized the industry and must be bailed out. This is directly due to our government not having the guts to regulate monopolies.

ON THE HOMELESS

• Your ideas about what liberals believe is fascinating to me. I have never believed in that. I donate $1500/yr. to the homeless project in Santa Cruz so that they don't remain homeless. I think this is typical of most liberal attitudes about homelessness.
• Also, we don't live in a merit based economy. Where there are problems with justice, there are problems with merit. Just ask African Americans and/or native Americans. And it's not just minorities. Throughout our history unjust economic policies and labor practices have engineered privilege to certain groups and impoverished others. Dream on. Listen, I know you love America and everything, but stop deluding yourself that your experience represents what America is and has been.

THE REST OF YOUR COMMENTS

• I can't believe you even bothered to respond to the other list, which is blatantly partisan and doesn't represent the interests of most Americans
• I can't believe you responded to the 2 lists together as if each is equally credible. That's a real slam on me. I don't know if it is intentional, but it wouldn't be the first time that your comments come off a bit passive aggressive even though they seem intellectually sophisticated.

Listen, I am trying to bring us together, get beyond partisan politics and address some issues, although I should have mentioned climate change and didn't. If you want to re-arrange deck chairs while the titanic is sinking, fine, go ahead. That is what you comments above are. They do nothing to move us forward and address issues. They are a bunch of hand wringing over how complicated solving problems is. Fine, go ahead.

I'm going to continue doing what I'm doing and ignore you. Or you can join me. It's up to you.

---

Nothing you wrote is unifying but is entirely partisan and conclusory offering opinions as facts. But because you are partisan, you think it's unifying. So please feel free to continue to ignore me.

Taxes. Why just 0.05% and not you? Why doesn't it hurt them but it hurts you? Because you say so?

What the hell are you writing about the military? Cut the budget in half and we can still help Ukraine? Is that all we need to do for world security? Such breathtaking expertise and refined thinking. Surprise they don't make you Secretary of Defense. And if they are never audited, how do you know they are not efficient? And SS and Medicare efficient? No Medicare fraud, right? Government efficient? How much of the unemployment during COVID was lost due to fraud? You giving money for homeless means the laws in liberal cities are not in place to make it harder to force homeless into shelters? What?! Yes, to have an efficient economy and avoid inflation, you need unemployment and some poverty. Basic economic fact. And the other lists are outrageous and unworthy because they don't align with your partisan beliefs? Very unifying. So yes, please ignore me and keep deluding yourself that you are not partisan. Provide one concession to the other side's concerns and you may have some credibility. But your idea of unifying is everyone unifying to your liberal beliefs. Sorry but not mentioning climate change does not make you nonpartisan.

---

If I'm partisan than most of America is with me. The list I formulated are common populist positions on those issues. I'm not interested in concessions to unify everybody. I'm interested in unifying the true majority on the issues where there is a clear and consistent majority. To do this, we would have to move beyond partisan politics and move on the issue directly without paying attention to how the media portrays them.

I suspect you think they are partisan because that is how the media portrays them. You ever actually met anybody that wants to cut social security? They are rare.

Also, maybe I am partisan but I'm making an attempt to move beyond that. It won't include everyone. It won't include you. But I don't care about that. I want it to include most people. That's what Democracy is all about, moving on the issues that primarily effect most people. But I'm not counting on the Democratic party for that.

---

Why do liberals keep repeating theoretical fallacies when reality proves otherwise? Most Americans adopt those ideas? Is that why those I objected to still die on the vine and politicians who promote opposing views are still elected? If what you wrote were true, those policies would have passed since politicians who promote those would universally be elected. Yet they are not. But you keep saying they are unifying. Sorry reality proves you wrong.

calbear93 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

That's not a unifying list

---

Neither of the two lists is unifying.

I can agree with many from each list and disagree with the rest.

Others will disagree with my list.

All we can do is hold a debate on why I choose certain items on each list and then we each go to vote.

Unless its an election of Trump vs. Biden.


Areas of disagreement for me:

Raise taxes on the super wealthy
- the problem with statement like this is that "super wealthy" is always those above their own tax bracket. Justify to me why your taxes should not go up exponentially. On a global perspective, are you really just getting by?

lower the military budget (stop paying for illegal wars and hold the pentagon accountable financially)
- the problem with this is that we want to protect our world order where Putins of the world cannot just bully weaker countries but do so without the necessary military. If the standard for cutting budget is due to inefficiency, then everything should be cut and you have become a Republican.

Break ties with global elites so they can't control our economy, culture and politics
- the problem is like taxes. who are the global elite? this type of class war is the heart of what got Trump elected. Why does it have to be a class war or education war instead of argument about policy? Much easier to hate a group than to debate policy

Stop welfare for the wealthy and able
- who is wealthy? Assume this is meant to address tax breaks for corporation. the tax breaks are intended not as a hand out but a means of control in areas that they otherwise under the constitution (other than through negative commerce clause) legislate. For example, tax breaks under CHIPS to incentivize investment in US semi-conductor manufacturing. Seems like welfare but good for the country and national security. Etc. We can also argue about who is able. The right argues that there is too much welfare for those who are able to work but choose not to.

Deal with poverty and homelessness
- no one wants more poverty or homelessness. but it is a question of how we go about it and to what extent. and I think the liberal way of just allowing long-term homeless to stay homeless without some forced change is counterproductive and creates more homeless. as long as we have a merit-based economy, there will always be poverty. we can have poverty for all like Cuba or have a merit-based economy (we can then argue whether risk taking is merit but nothing is stopping you from taking the same risks).

Eliminating month-long elections and reducing the 70% mail in ballot number
- Republicans used to be more in favor of mail in ballots and long election to assist the military and older voters. Trump decided to build in an excuse and convinced his base not to vote by mail when it seemed like states that always had mail in votes (e.g. California even when it was purple) was somehow fraudulent for doing the same - why is anyone surprised that mail-in votes tilted toward Biden?

Holding the FBI, DOJ, and the corporate media accountable for framing Donald Trump as a Russian agent to rig the 2016 election.
- sounds like a liberal, criminal loving argument. I want our justice system to investigate when there is even slight probable cause. there was evidence. they needed to investigate to assess the worthiness of the evidence. they chose not to indict Trump on collusion with the Russians. it worked. no one is exempt from investigation, as clearly demonstrated by the Jordan committee.

Holding the corporate media accountable for claiming that Hunter Biden's laptop was "Russian disinformation" to rig the 2020 election.
-what would you like our DOJ to do about lying media like Foxnews and even their further right-right, further lying media? Or is it just media that does not report what the far right wants to hear?

Holding the FBI and DOJ accountable for hiding Hunter Biden's laptop, containing evidence of FARA violations, money laundering, and foreign bribes, to help Joe Biden become POTUS.
- if they were hiding the laptop, how do you know about its existence or content? Or do you think that they should release all evidence and all facts during a pending investigation? WOuld you have been happy if the FBI did that with the Trumps prior to indictment or conclusion of the investigation?

Holding the DHS, CISA, and the White House accountable for working with Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to censor American citizens.
- apparently agency cannot investigate corporations for ensuring compliance with applicable law? DOJ, SEC, FTC, etc. are always trying to influence behavior. All those compliance programs are mainly based on not just national securities exchange listing standards but also sentencing guidelines and guidance on when and how these agencies will investigate and enforce. if they viewed those platforms as spreading destructive messages (1st amendment does not allow you to scream fire in a crowded theater) or propaganda from Russia/China, they can investigate. Kind of like how the Jordan committee wants to investigate everything.

---

I appreciate the care and consideration you put into this but I have to disagree on quite a few assumption you've made:

ON TAXING THE WEALTHY

• A tax increase would be on the .05% or whatever is agreed upon. So, those that fall into that bracket would change each year. So it can't be set to be automatically above wherever I am because it changes every year.
• I am spending more than I make so, yeah, I'm not making it and my taxes have been steadily increasing over my lifetime just like the rest of the middle class
• Many of the super wealthy agree with a tax increase on them. Warren Buffet was quoted as saying that there has been a class war over the last 25 years and the wealthy won. What do you suppose he meant by that?
• The idea of raising taxes on the super wealthy is that it doesn't hurt them as much. Listen, if you have money to hire a bunch of lobbyists and or continually pour in large amounts of money in order to buy influence, you make enough to have your taxes raised.

THE MILITARY BUDGET

• Your comments are entirely opinions: It is widely recognized by economists and even by the Pentagon that there is gross overspending and lack of accountability. You could cut the military budget in half and still have more than enough money to help Ukraine and do whatever else is necessary to protect the country. This has been widely studied for years by experts.
• To say that everything in government is similar to the Pentagon on inefficiency is ridiculous. Other things like Medicaid and Social security get audited regularly but the Pentagon has refused to be audited. Many programs are forced to be efficient but not the military.
• Over the last 50 years, complaints about the federal budget and overspending have led to cuts in almost every area of life. Meanwhile the Pentagon budget continues to skyrocket unchecked.

ON WELFARE

• The US government not only subsidizes for the reasons you mention. They also subsidize because they are too big to fail, meaning that they have monopolized the industry and must be bailed out. This is directly due to our government not having the guts to regulate monopolies.

ON THE HOMELESS

• Your ideas about what liberals believe is fascinating to me. I have never believed in that. I donate $1500/yr. to the homeless project in Santa Cruz so that they don't remain homeless. I think this is typical of most liberal attitudes about homelessness.
• Also, we don't live in a merit based economy. Where there are problems with justice, there are problems with merit. Just ask African Americans and/or native Americans. And it's not just minorities. Throughout our history unjust economic policies and labor practices have engineered privilege to certain groups and impoverished others. Dream on. Listen, I know you love America and everything, but stop deluding yourself that your experience represents what America is and has been.

THE REST OF YOUR COMMENTS

• I can't believe you even bothered to respond to the other list, which is blatantly partisan and doesn't represent the interests of most Americans
• I can't believe you responded to the 2 lists together as if each is equally credible. That's a real slam on me. I don't know if it is intentional, but it wouldn't be the first time that your comments come off a bit passive aggressive even though they seem intellectually sophisticated.

Listen, I am trying to bring us together, get beyond partisan politics and address some issues, although I should have mentioned climate change and didn't. If you want to re-arrange deck chairs while the titanic is sinking, fine, go ahead. That is what you comments above are. They do nothing to move us forward and address issues. They are a bunch of hand wringing over how complicated solving problems is. Fine, go ahead.

I'm going to continue doing what I'm doing and ignore you. Or you can join me. It's up to you.

---

Nothing you wrote is unifying but is entirely partisan and conclusory offering opinions as facts. But because you are partisan, you think it's unifying. So please feel free to continue to ignore me.

Taxes. Why just 0.05% and not you? Why doesn't it hurt them but it hurts you? Because you say so?

What the hell are you writing about the military? Cut the budget in half and we can still help Ukraine? Is that all we need to do for world security? Such breathtaking expertise and refined thinking. Surprise they don't make you Secretary of Defense. And if they are never audited, how do you know they are not efficient? And SS and Medicare efficient? No Medicare fraud, right? Government efficient? How much of the unemployment during COVID was lost due to fraud? You giving money for homeless means the laws in liberal cities are not in place to make it harder to force homeless into shelters? What?! Yes, to have an efficient economy and avoid inflation, you need unemployment and some poverty. Basic economic fact. And the other lists are outrageous and unworthy because they don't align with your partisan beliefs? Very unifying. So yes, please ignore me and keep deluding yourself that you are not partisan. Provide one concession to the other side's concerns and you may have some credibility. But your idea of unifying is everyone unifying to your liberal beliefs. Sorry but not mentioning climate change does not make you nonpartisan.

---

If I'm partisan than most of America is with me. The list I formulated are common populist positions on those issues. I'm not interested in concessions to unify everybody. I'm interested in unifying the true majority on the issues where there is a clear and consistent majority. To do this, we would have to move beyond partisan politics and move on the issue directly without paying attention to how the media portrays them.

I suspect you think they are partisan because that is how the media portrays them. You ever actually met anybody that wants to cut social security? They are rare.

Also, maybe I am partisan but I'm making an attempt to move beyond that. It won't include everyone. It won't include you. But I don't care about that. I want it to include most people. That's what Democracy is all about, moving on the issues that primarily effect most people. But I'm not counting on the Democratic party for that.

---

Why do liberals keep repeating theoretical fallacies when reality proves otherwise? Most Americans adopt those ideas? Is that why those I objected to still die on the vine and politicians who promote opposing views are still elected? If what you wrote were true, those policies would have passed since politicians who promote those would universally be elected. Yet they are not. But you keep saying they are unifying. Sorry reality proves you wrong.

---

Heartofthebear is correct. Reality is that our policies are determined by a Federal structure and not a popular structure. The minority uses the Senate, Electoral College, and Supreme Court to stop all kinds of good, popular proposals.

Take gun control for example. After Uvalde I seem to remember some very strident posts from you about commitments you were personally going to make to advance gun control. Most of the proposals are popular with the American people but we have less gun control now then we did then. Why is that?

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

That's not a unifying list

---

Neither of the two lists is unifying.

I can agree with many from each list and disagree with the rest.

Others will disagree with my list.

All we can do is hold a debate on why I choose certain items on each list and then we each go to vote.

Unless its an election of Trump vs. Biden.


Areas of disagreement for me:

Raise taxes on the super wealthy
- the problem with statement like this is that "super wealthy" is always those above their own tax bracket. Justify to me why your taxes should not go up exponentially. On a global perspective, are you really just getting by?

lower the military budget (stop paying for illegal wars and hold the pentagon accountable financially)
- the problem with this is that we want to protect our world order where Putins of the world cannot just bully weaker countries but do so without the necessary military. If the standard for cutting budget is due to inefficiency, then everything should be cut and you have become a Republican.

Break ties with global elites so they can't control our economy, culture and politics
- the problem is like taxes. who are the global elite? this type of class war is the heart of what got Trump elected. Why does it have to be a class war or education war instead of argument about policy? Much easier to hate a group than to debate policy

Stop welfare for the wealthy and able
- who is wealthy? Assume this is meant to address tax breaks for corporation. the tax breaks are intended not as a hand out but a means of control in areas that they otherwise under the constitution (other than through negative commerce clause) legislate. For example, tax breaks under CHIPS to incentivize investment in US semi-conductor manufacturing. Seems like welfare but good for the country and national security. Etc. We can also argue about who is able. The right argues that there is too much welfare for those who are able to work but choose not to.

Deal with poverty and homelessness
- no one wants more poverty or homelessness. but it is a question of how we go about it and to what extent. and I think the liberal way of just allowing long-term homeless to stay homeless without some forced change is counterproductive and creates more homeless. as long as we have a merit-based economy, there will always be poverty. we can have poverty for all like Cuba or have a merit-based economy (we can then argue whether risk taking is merit but nothing is stopping you from taking the same risks).

Eliminating month-long elections and reducing the 70% mail in ballot number
- Republicans used to be more in favor of mail in ballots and long election to assist the military and older voters. Trump decided to build in an excuse and convinced his base not to vote by mail when it seemed like states that always had mail in votes (e.g. California even when it was purple) was somehow fraudulent for doing the same - why is anyone surprised that mail-in votes tilted toward Biden?

Holding the FBI, DOJ, and the corporate media accountable for framing Donald Trump as a Russian agent to rig the 2016 election.
- sounds like a liberal, criminal loving argument. I want our justice system to investigate when there is even slight probable cause. there was evidence. they needed to investigate to assess the worthiness of the evidence. they chose not to indict Trump on collusion with the Russians. it worked. no one is exempt from investigation, as clearly demonstrated by the Jordan committee.

Holding the corporate media accountable for claiming that Hunter Biden's laptop was "Russian disinformation" to rig the 2020 election.
-what would you like our DOJ to do about lying media like Foxnews and even their further right-right, further lying media? Or is it just media that does not report what the far right wants to hear?

Holding the FBI and DOJ accountable for hiding Hunter Biden's laptop, containing evidence of FARA violations, money laundering, and foreign bribes, to help Joe Biden become POTUS.
- if they were hiding the laptop, how do you know about its existence or content? Or do you think that they should release all evidence and all facts during a pending investigation? WOuld you have been happy if the FBI did that with the Trumps prior to indictment or conclusion of the investigation?

Holding the DHS, CISA, and the White House accountable for working with Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to censor American citizens.
- apparently agency cannot investigate corporations for ensuring compliance with applicable law? DOJ, SEC, FTC, etc. are always trying to influence behavior. All those compliance programs are mainly based on not just national securities exchange listing standards but also sentencing guidelines and guidance on when and how these agencies will investigate and enforce. if they viewed those platforms as spreading destructive messages (1st amendment does not allow you to scream fire in a crowded theater) or propaganda from Russia/China, they can investigate. Kind of like how the Jordan committee wants to investigate everything.

---

I appreciate the care and consideration you put into this but I have to disagree on quite a few assumption you've made:

ON TAXING THE WEALTHY

• A tax increase would be on the .05% or whatever is agreed upon. So, those that fall into that bracket would change each year. So it can't be set to be automatically above wherever I am because it changes every year.
• I am spending more than I make so, yeah, I'm not making it and my taxes have been steadily increasing over my lifetime just like the rest of the middle class
• Many of the super wealthy agree with a tax increase on them. Warren Buffet was quoted as saying that there has been a class war over the last 25 years and the wealthy won. What do you suppose he meant by that?
• The idea of raising taxes on the super wealthy is that it doesn't hurt them as much. Listen, if you have money to hire a bunch of lobbyists and or continually pour in large amounts of money in order to buy influence, you make enough to have your taxes raised.

THE MILITARY BUDGET

• Your comments are entirely opinions: It is widely recognized by economists and even by the Pentagon that there is gross overspending and lack of accountability. You could cut the military budget in half and still have more than enough money to help Ukraine and do whatever else is necessary to protect the country. This has been widely studied for years by experts.
• To say that everything in government is similar to the Pentagon on inefficiency is ridiculous. Other things like Medicaid and Social security get audited regularly but the Pentagon has refused to be audited. Many programs are forced to be efficient but not the military.
• Over the last 50 years, complaints about the federal budget and overspending have led to cuts in almost every area of life. Meanwhile the Pentagon budget continues to skyrocket unchecked.

ON WELFARE

• The US government not only subsidizes for the reasons you mention. They also subsidize because they are too big to fail, meaning that they have monopolized the industry and must be bailed out. This is directly due to our government not having the guts to regulate monopolies.

ON THE HOMELESS

• Your ideas about what liberals believe is fascinating to me. I have never believed in that. I donate $1500/yr. to the homeless project in Santa Cruz so that they don't remain homeless. I think this is typical of most liberal attitudes about homelessness.
• Also, we don't live in a merit based economy. Where there are problems with justice, there are problems with merit. Just ask African Americans and/or native Americans. And it's not just minorities. Throughout our history unjust economic policies and labor practices have engineered privilege to certain groups and impoverished others. Dream on. Listen, I know you love America and everything, but stop deluding yourself that your experience represents what America is and has been.

THE REST OF YOUR COMMENTS

• I can't believe you even bothered to respond to the other list, which is blatantly partisan and doesn't represent the interests of most Americans
• I can't believe you responded to the 2 lists together as if each is equally credible. That's a real slam on me. I don't know if it is intentional, but it wouldn't be the first time that your comments come off a bit passive aggressive even though they seem intellectually sophisticated.

Listen, I am trying to bring us together, get beyond partisan politics and address some issues, although I should have mentioned climate change and didn't. If you want to re-arrange deck chairs while the titanic is sinking, fine, go ahead. That is what you comments above are. They do nothing to move us forward and address issues. They are a bunch of hand wringing over how complicated solving problems is. Fine, go ahead.

I'm going to continue doing what I'm doing and ignore you. Or you can join me. It's up to you.

---

Nothing you wrote is unifying but is entirely partisan and conclusory offering opinions as facts. But because you are partisan, you think it's unifying. So please feel free to continue to ignore me.

Taxes. Why just 0.05% and not you? Why doesn't it hurt them but it hurts you? Because you say so?

What the hell are you writing about the military? Cut the budget in half and we can still help Ukraine? Is that all we need to do for world security? Such breathtaking expertise and refined thinking. Surprise they don't make you Secretary of Defense. And if they are never audited, how do you know they are not efficient? And SS and Medicare efficient? No Medicare fraud, right? Government efficient? How much of the unemployment during COVID was lost due to fraud? You giving money for homeless means the laws in liberal cities are not in place to make it harder to force homeless into shelters? What?! Yes, to have an efficient economy and avoid inflation, you need unemployment and some poverty. Basic economic fact. And the other lists are outrageous and unworthy because they don't align with your partisan beliefs? Very unifying. So yes, please ignore me and keep deluding yourself that you are not partisan. Provide one concession to the other side's concerns and you may have some credibility. But your idea of unifying is everyone unifying to your liberal beliefs. Sorry but not mentioning climate change does not make you nonpartisan.

---

If I'm partisan than most of America is with me. The list I formulated are common populist positions on those issues. I'm not interested in concessions to unify everybody. I'm interested in unifying the true majority on the issues where there is a clear and consistent majority. To do this, we would have to move beyond partisan politics and move on the issue directly without paying attention to how the media portrays them.

I suspect you think they are partisan because that is how the media portrays them. You ever actually met anybody that wants to cut social security? They are rare.

Also, maybe I am partisan but I'm making an attempt to move beyond that. It won't include everyone. It won't include you. But I don't care about that. I want it to include most people. That's what Democracy is all about, moving on the issues that primarily effect most people. But I'm not counting on the Democratic party for that.

---

Why do liberals keep repeating theoretical fallacies when reality proves otherwise? Most Americans adopt those ideas? Is that why those I objected to still die on the vine and politicians who promote opposing views are still elected? If what you wrote were true, those policies would have passed since politicians who promote those would universally be elected. Yet they are not. But you keep saying they are unifying. Sorry reality proves you wrong.

---

Heartofthebear is correct. Reality is that our policies are determined by a Federal structure and not a popular structure. The minority uses the Senate and Supreme Court to stop all kinds of good, popular proposals.

Take gun control for example. After Uvalde I seem to remember some very strident posts from you about commitments you were personally going to make to advance gun control. Most of the proposals are popular with the American people but we have less gun control now then we did then. Why is that?

---

As someone who is for more gun control and meaningful enforcement of such gun control even with relatives of presidents, I also realize what one says to the polls and what one does when actually voting are two different things. Here is how actual voters think. Concept of taxing rich folks is good as long as it's the next rich guy and not me. I am for hurting the rich folks but raising taxes may impact me so I will be against it. Why do democrats need to say no taxes to those making 399,999? They can't pay more? Really? It's always about making the other guy contribute. Take guns away from the bad folks but not my beloved guns. Make government efficient and don't help able people but don't you dare take away my entitlements. I am for liberal treatment of illegals immigrants and for sanctuary cities as long as they don't come to my city and my state. If they do, the federal government better shut down that border. To say something is unifyingly popular despite the fact that the house of representatives (the most democratic form of federal government) is at least 50% comprised of representatives who promote otherwise is nonsense. If it were unifying, the house would be liberal with representatives promoting those ideals and not the opposite.

heartofthebear said:

---

That's not a unifying list

---

You can't unify by trying to imprison the opposition's leading candidate and sweeping the recent past under the rug. I see no effort on one side to hold their elected leaders accountable.

DeSantis and his Diplo Burning Man Nazis Got clowned by Donna Brazile in MAGA Ohio.

it’s not Tim Kaine on Trumps Truth Social They're Biden people dipshit #BurningMan #Florida

pic.twitter.com/REU1IfEpW8

— Dark Malarkey (@fortylittleking) September 3, 2023

Donald Trump's message on Truth Social is ALL of us. pic.twitter.com/66gWLLxgJe

— 💯Malcolm FleX - Enigmatic Desperado💯 (@Malcolm_fleX48) September 3, 2023

Zippergate said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

There is very little conservative about the modern Republican Party and I sadly agree with many (most?) of the criticisms of it expressed here. But in a two party system, it's the choice by default because the alternative is completely off the rails. It doesn't matter now because they will win regardless of popular sentiment for the same reason that Maduro always wins. Laugh/gloat now while you have the chance. On the bright side, thanks to Chavism, Venezuelans don't need Ozempic.

---

But there is something we can do. Remember, both parties fundamentally care about obtaining and retaining power. That is their Achilles heel. As long as people continue to accept that our only choices are the lesser of two evils, nothing changes. We can refuse to vote or we can start voting in different ways. It is just a numbers game...enough of us need to do something different and the two parties will change. IMO Republicans are more likely to change first, mostly because (IMO) they are a rudderless group that mostly doesn't even pretend to have core values any longer.

---

The answer is, of course, populism. Trump is vulgar, but anyone who despises him because he is "conservative" is just misinformed. He was a Democrat for most of his life and his policies as president were a mishmash of traditionally left and right ideas because deep down he's not an idealogue, he's a pragmatist. But he's a political outsider willing to take on entrenched interests and that is what we need. Don't like Trump? Fine, someone else then. I'd be thrilled if he would leave the political stage if we could replace him with someone with similar energy and will to break the Uniparty stranglehold.

Rather than hate on the populists in the Republican Party, it would be great if sensible liberals would form their own populist coalition and push back against the insanity. Even better if they'd find common cause with right-leaning populists, bring the whole thing to the center where most Americans are, and cleanse the system of the Uniparty.

I'm sure all of this is totally repugnant to most here who identify as Team Blue. But I ask you, would any of you be willing to vote for a Republican? I'd vote for RFK Jr in a heartbeat (even though we have quite different world views) because I think he is an honest man who won't sell out to the establishment. He's the quintessential 60's liberal so I find it fascinating that he is attacked primarily from the left, not the right. It's also interesting that he shares a number of views that align with Trump populists. It's because the Democratic Party has abandoned their raison d'etre and become a cabal of semi-authoritarian, neocon, kleptocratic social Jacobins.

---

As a progressive, I agree but we can do better than RFK junior

heartofthebear said:

---

As a progressive, I agree but we can do better than RFK junior

---

Why do you think we can do better? Anyone, including progressives, who steps up to the plate to challenge the current regime and status quo will be treated like a right wing extremist. Do you hear any Democrats making noise?

BearHunter said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

As a progressive, I agree but we can do better than RFK junior

---

Why do you think we can do better? Anyone, including progressives, who steps up to the plate to challenge the current regime and status quo will be treated like a right wing extremist. Do you hear any Democrats making noise?

---

That is just the machine. Does anyone really think Newsom believes Harris is the better candidate? But if he ever wants to run and obtain support, he has to bend the knee for the current administration,

Same with Trump. Most of the support he receives from the Republican politicians are not based on actual belief that he is the best candidate. It comes from wanting to retain power.

calbear93 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

As a progressive, I agree but we can do better than RFK junior

---

Why do you think we can do better? Anyone, including progressives, who steps up to the plate to challenge the current regime and status quo will be treated like a right wing extremist. Do you hear any Democrats making noise?

---

That is just the machine. Does anyone really think Newsom believes Harris is the better candidate? But if he ever wants to run and obtain support, he has to bend the knee for the current administration,

Same with Trump. Most of the support he receives from the Republican politicians are not based on actual belief that he is the best candidate. It comes from wanting to retain power.

---

I don't think Newsom will run mainly because if he did, the Democrats would alienate many black voters, particularly female black voters, since he would be bypassing Kamala.

The Democratic Party is still a better oiled machine. You don't hear Biden being challenged by other leaders within the party like you see on the Republican side with Trump.

BearHunter said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

As a progressive, I agree but we can do better than RFK junior

---

Why do you think we can do better? Anyone, including progressives, who steps up to the plate to challenge the current regime and status quo will be treated like a right wing extremist. Do you hear any Democrats making noise?

---

That is just the machine. Does anyone really think Newsom believes Harris is the better candidate? But if he ever wants to run and obtain support, he has to bend the knee for the current administration,

Same with Trump. Most of the support he receives from the Republican politicians are not based on actual belief that he is the best candidate. It comes from wanting to retain power.

---

I don't think Newsom will run mainly because if he did, the Democrats would alienate many black voters, particularly female black voters, since he would be bypassing Kamala.

The Democratic Party is still a better oiled machine. You don't hear Biden being challenged by other leaders within the party like you see on the Republican side with Trump.

---

I dunno. Seems pretty clear that the gears are in motion to drop Biden who is nothing but a figurehead for Team Obama. Biden is so unpopular and so obviously mentally impaired that it will be difficult to pull off another 2020 even with the most extensive "voter fraud organization in American political history." I think "Michelle" will be at the top of the ticket.

The only "Black people" in question are immigrants or those with no of knowledge self.

Reparations is the only way to the indigenous Black vote.

Karl Rove a month ago:

"The End Is Near for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton"

🤡 pic.twitter.com/vuURDNSWeM

— Wojciech Pawelczyk (@WojPawelczyk) September 16, 2023

Ken Paxton has been acquitted on ALL charges and the Bush Republican political legacy machine in Texas is now over.

calbear93 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

As a progressive, I agree but we can do better than RFK junior

---

Why do you think we can do better? Anyone, including progressives, who steps up to the plate to challenge the current regime and status quo will be treated like a right wing extremist. Do you hear any Democrats making noise?

---

That is just the machine. Does anyone really think Newsom believes Harris is the better candidate? But if he ever wants to run and obtain support, he has to bend the knee for the current administration,

Same with Trump. Most of the support he receives from the Republican politicians are not based on actual belief that he is the best candidate. It comes from wanting to retain power.

---

Newsom absolutely believes Harris is a better candidate to run with Biden. Newsom is a smart politician. He knows Biden / Harris gets better democratic turnout than Biden / Newsom.