Crazy Talk

[dblack]

I know this will sound utterly insane to most of you, but bear with me.

Regarding the upcoming US Presidential election - what if one, or both, of the major parties chose a different approach? And, rather than nominating a candidate who party supporters will love, and party detractors will hate, they chose a candidate who most voters, regardless of party, could accept - even if that candidate might not be their first choice? What if such a candidate avoided proposing a bunch of policies that half the country will love, and half the country will hate? What is such a candidate defined their agenda, not so much on what they will do, but on what they won't do? A candidate who would promise, for example, to not push the woke agenda via legislation, to not ban abortion, to not socialize health care, to not purge the government of dissent, to not seek revenge on their party's enemies, to not wall off the borders, to not piss off the other side at every single opportunity?

What if such a candidate promised to only sign legislation that had broad, bi-partisan support, and veto bills without that kind of support?

In other words, what if we chose a leader who could inspire everyone and represent the interests of the entire country, not just their party?

I know most people here are hardcore two-party combatants, but for those of you who aren't, would you vote for such a candidate?

I honestly believe that if either party did that, they'd win in a landslide.

 

[d0gbreath]

I voted yes, even though I think that it's an impossibility.

 

[Mac1958]

In other words, what if we chose a leader who could inspire everyone and represent the interests of the entire country, not just their party?

That's not what the most energized people in the parties want.

I doubt that either party would let such a person get on the ballot.

 

[1srelluc]

Rand Paul is not running.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The want of a candidate to ‘inspire’ everyone is part of the problem.

The want should be of a candidate who is experienced, capable, knowledgeable of responsible governance, sound public policy, and the law – a candidate whose policy positions are based on facts, the truth, and respect for our democratic institutions.

And such candidates have been consistently rejected by the voters – the consequence of the peoples’ desire for bad government.

I know this will sound utterly insane to most of you, but bear with me.

Regarding the upcoming US Presidential election - what if one, or both, of the major parties chose a different approach? And, rather than nominating a candidate who party supporters will love, and party detractors will hate, they chose a candidate who most voters, regardless of party, could accept - even if that candidate might not be their first choice? What if such a candidate avoided proposing a bunch of policies that half the country will love, and half the country will hate? What is such a candidate defined their agenda, not so much on what they will do, but on what they won't do? A candidate who would promise, for example, to not push the woke agenda via legislation, to not ban abortion, to not socialize health care, to not purge the government of dissent, to not seek revenge on their party's enemies, to not wall off the borders, to not piss off the other side at every single opportunity?

What if such a candidate promised to only sign legislation that had broad, bi-partisan support, and veto bills without that kind of support?

In other words, what if we chose a leader who could inspire everyone and represent the interests of the entire country, not just their party?

I know most people here are hardcore two-party combatants, but for those of you who aren't, would you vote for such a candidate?

I honestly believe that if either party did that, they'd win in a landslide.

The problem isn’t with the parties – the problem is with the people and their penchant for bad government.

The people are alone responsible for the bad government they get, including presidential candidates.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

a bunch of policies that half the country will love, and half the country will hate?

Why not policies based on facts and the truth; policies both necessary and proper manifestations of sound, responsible governance; policies that acknowledge and safeguard the rights and protected liberties of the people.

Accommodating policies based on ignorance, fear, stupidity, racism, bigotry, and hate is reckless, irresponsible governance.

 

[progressive hunter]

I know this will sound utterly insane to most of you, but bear with me.

Regarding the upcoming US Presidential election - what if one, or both, of the major parties chose a different approach? And, rather than nominating a candidate who party supporters will love, and party detractors will hate, they chose a candidate who most voters, regardless of party, could accept - even if that candidate might not be their first choice? What if such a candidate avoided proposing a bunch of policies that half the country will love, and half the country will hate? What is such a candidate defined their agenda, not so much on what they will do, but on what they won't do? A candidate who would promise, for example, to not push the woke agenda via legislation, to not ban abortion, to not socialize health care, to not purge the government of dissent, to not seek revenge on their party's enemies, to not wall off the borders, to not piss off the other side at every single opportunity?

What if such a candidate promised to only sign legislation that had broad, bi-partisan support, and veto bills without that kind of support?

In other words, what if we chose a leader who could inspire everyone and represent the interests of the entire country, not just their party?

I know most people here are hardcore two-party combatants, but for those of you who aren't, would you vote for such a candidate?

I honestly believe that if either party did that, they'd win in a landslide.

what kind of fucking idiot would be OK with anything both dems and repubs agree on??

these two groups have fucked this country up beyond belief,,

all consensus means is everyone is a fucking idiot,,

 

[dblack]

The want of a candidate to ‘inspire’ everyone is part of the problem.

Yeah. Inspiring leadership is stupid!

And such candidates have been consistently rejected by the voters – the consequence of the peoples’ desire for bad government.

People desire bad government? Really?

The problem isn’t with the parties – the problem is with the people and their penchant for bad government.

I see.

The people are alone responsible for the bad government they get, including presidential candidates.

Mkay.

Any thoughts on the actual proposal? Would you vote for a consensus candidate?

 

[dblack]

what kind of fucking idiot would be OK with anything both dems and repubs agree on??

these two groups have fucked this country up beyond belief,,

all consensus means is everyone is a fucking idiot,,

So, would rather have a Democrat than a consensus candidate?

 

[progressive hunter]

So, would rather have a Democrat than a consensus candidate?

so if both parties agreed to throw out the constitution and just make shit up as they go would be OK with you??

thats a trick question since to a degree thats already happening,,

 

[Crepitus]

I know this will sound utterly insane to most of you, but bear with me.

Regarding the upcoming US Presidential election - what if one, or both, of the major parties chose a different approach? And, rather than nominating a candidate who party supporters will love, and party detractors will hate, they chose a candidate who most voters, regardless of party, could accept - even if that candidate might not be their first choice? What if such a candidate avoided proposing a bunch of policies that half the country will love, and half the country will hate? What is such a candidate defined their agenda, not so much on what they will do, but on what they won't do? A candidate who would promise, for example, to not push the woke agenda via legislation, to not ban abortion, to not socialize health care, to not purge the government of dissent, to not seek revenge on their party's enemies, to not wall off the borders, to not piss off the other side at every single opportunity?

What if such a candidate promised to only sign legislation that had broad, bi-partisan support, and veto bills without that kind of support?

In other words, what if we chose a leader who could inspire everyone and represent the interests of the entire country, not just their party?

I know most people here are hardcore two-party combatants, but for those of you who aren't, would you vote for such a candidate?

I honestly believe that if either party did that, they'd win in a landslide.

Define "consensus candidate".

 

[Oddball]

So, would rather have a Democrat than a consensus candidate?

Every "consensus candidate" of the last few decades has made everything worse.

The only "consensus" anyone in the federal leviathan can agree upon is the expansion and aggrandizement of The State.

 

[dblack]

Why not policies based on facts and the truth; policies both necessary and proper manifestations of sound, responsible governance; policies that acknowledge and safeguard the rights and protected liberties of the people.

Because opinions on those issues differ. And if half the country hates a leader, they won't do much leading. They won't unite us and we'll continue to thrash back and forth between partisan extremes. Is that what you want?

Accommodating policies based on ignorance, fear, stupidity, racism, bigotry, and hate is reckless, irresponsible governance.

No one said anything about that. That's just your characterization of consensus. Why?

 

[Oddball]

No one said anything about that. That's just your characterization of consensus. Why?

You're really asking the forum's autorantic chatbot that, with the expectation of a cogent reply?

 

[progressive hunter]

Because opinions on those issues differ. And if half the country hates a leader, they won't do much leading. They won't unite us and we'll continue to thrash back and forth between partisan extremes. Is that what you want?

No one said anything about that. That's just your characterization of consensus. Why?

I never understood this need for a leader,,

the government is nothing more than an executive pool that takes care of daily business like picking up trash,,

but then again a useful idiot does need someone to tell them what to do,,

 

[dblack]

so if both parties agreed to throw out the constitution and just make shit up as they go would be OK with you??

thats a trick question since to a degree thats already happening,,

Exactly. I don't see how my suggestion would impact that at all.

 

[konradv]

I know this will sound utterly insane to most of you, but bear with me.

Regarding the upcoming US Presidential election - what if one, or both, of the major parties chose a different approach? And, rather than nominating a candidate who party supporters will love, and party detractors will hate, they chose a candidate who most voters, regardless of party, could accept - even if that candidate might not be their first choice? What if such a candidate avoided proposing a bunch of policies that half the country will love, and half the country will hate? What is such a candidate defined their agenda, not so much on what they will do, but on what they won't do? A candidate who would promise, for example, to not push the woke agenda via legislation, to not ban abortion, to not socialize health care, to not purge the government of dissent, to not seek revenge on their party's enemies, to not wall off the borders, to not piss off the other side at every single opportunity?

What if such a candidate promised to only sign legislation that had broad, bi-partisan support, and veto bills without that kind of support?

In other words, what if we chose a leader who could inspire everyone and represent the interests of the entire country, not just their party?

I know most people here are hardcore two-party combatants, but for those of you who aren't, would you vote for such a candidate?

I honestly believe that if either party did that, they'd win in a landslide.

Unfortunately, it’s money that counts. For any real change to occur, some form of governmental funding of campaigns will need to happen. It’s the modern version of the situation Rome faced, when it’s soldiers held more loyalty for their generals(donors), than the state.

 

[MinTrut]

I know this will sound utterly insane to most of you, but bear with me.

Regarding the upcoming US Presidential election - what if one, or both, of the major parties chose a different approach? And, rather than nominating a candidate who party supporters will love, and party detractors will hate, they chose a candidate who most voters, regardless of party, could accept - even if that candidate might not be their first choice? What if such a candidate avoided proposing a bunch of policies that half the country will love, and half the country will hate? What is such a candidate defined their agenda, not so much on what they will do, but on what they won't do? A candidate who would promise, for example, to not push the woke agenda via legislation, to not ban abortion, to not socialize health care, to not purge the government of dissent, to not seek revenge on their party's enemies, to not wall off the borders, to not piss off the other side at every single opportunity?

What if such a candidate promised to only sign legislation that had broad, bi-partisan support, and veto bills without that kind of support?

In other words, what if we chose a leader who could inspire everyone and represent the interests of the entire country, not just their party?

I know most people here are hardcore two-party combatants, but for those of you who aren't, would you vote for such a candidate?

I honestly believe that if either party did that, they'd win in a landslide.

What if drug dealers gave away flowers instead of selling deadly drugs?

Why would either of the two criminal gangs behave other than as criminal gangs?

 

[progressive hunter]

Exactly. I don't see how my suggestion would impact that at all.

it would make it worse but validating the behavior,,

 

[dblack]

Unfortunately, it’s money that counts. For any real change to occur, some form of governmental funding of campaigns will need to happen. It’s the modern version of the situation Rome faced, when it’s soldiers held more loyalty for their generals(donors), than the state.

Good grief. This tired saw? Nevermind that it's completely off-topic, it's also idiotic. You want to give the sitting government the power to decide which of its challengers get funding? Really??