Crazy Talk

[dblack]

it would make it worse but validating the behavior,,

??? I'm not sure I know what you're talking about. Do you?

 

[dblack]

Interesting. Most of the posts oppose the idea, but, so far, all of the votes support it.

 

[konradv]

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??

You don’t get it, do you? It’s the money! If my solution isn’t right, what is?

 

[progressive hunter]

??? I'm not sure I know what you're talking about. Do you?

doesnt surprise me,,

 

[dblack]

You don’t get it, do you? It’s the money! If my solution isn’t right, what is?

How did you answer the poll? Would you vote for a consensus candidate?

 

[konradv]

How did you answer the poll? Would you vote for a consensus candidate?

I voted with the majority. Now, answer my question.

 

[dblack]

I voted with the majority. Now, answer my question.

If you want to talk about another topic, start another thread. Link here, I'll respond.

 

[konradv]

If you want to talk about another topic, start another thread. Link here, I'll respond.

I was addressing the topic. I was informing you what the stumbling block was as in the position you were presenting.

 

[dblack]

I was addressing the topic. I was informing you what the stumbling block was as in the position you were presenting.

The thread isn't about how money impacts our elections. It's about whether we actually want consensus leaders, or if we prefer thrashing back and forth between partisan extremes. What's your take?

 

[dblack]

As noted in the OP, a key feature of a consensus candidate would be their commitment to what they would NOT do. In particular, they'd pledge to not sign legislation that utterly offends half the nation (or anything close to half).

Maybe a new party is called for - the Won't Party. They'd get my vote.

 

[BluesLegend]

Regarding the upcoming US Presidential election - what if one, or both, of the major parties chose a different approach?

Only one problem, Dems have gotten good at RIGGING, CHEATING, STEALING elections.

 

[konradv]

The thread isn't about how money impacts our elections. It's about whether we actually want consensus leaders, or if we prefer thrashing back and forth between partisan extremes. What's your take?

That you’re barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Independent thinker]

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.

But, that's not the way it works. They can't change the rules in the middle of the game.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Stupid concept because there is way such a candidate could exist.

 

[konradv]

But, that's not the way it works. They can't change the rules in the middle of the game.

Parties make up their own rules. Don’t have a clue what “game” you’re talking about.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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.

I just can't see somebody like that coming in. The world is hell bent on moving towards a one world utopia and it will get it......for a few years. A person like you mentioned would be antithetical to the global agenda of 2030.

 

[Magnus]

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.

Sure, let’s wait for the Second Coming. Any day now…

 

[Independent thinker]

Parties make up their own rules. Don’t have a clue what “game” you’re talking about.

Not too long ago Democrats had superdelegates which highly influenced who the nominee would be. Then after a lot of flack about that they changed the system so primary voters had more say. Now you're saying that they should go backwards to the party picking the nominee and to hell with the voters?

 

[dblack]

I just can't see somebody like that coming in.

That wasn't really the question. The question is whether you'd vote for them if they did.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

You continue to assume that both sides are sane, rational, and looking for a solution. One side refuses to cooperate and thinks that even voting for something that the other side proposes is a betrayal of the party - even if they otherwise agree with the proposal.

The don't want to work with the other side, they want to burn it all down.