sign me up Independent

a reply to: Bhadhidar

pls dont say that

originally posted by: TinySickTears
after watching hours of this # show today. im sure i cant consider myself a democrat

ive always thought of myself as a liberal but these days that dont really fit either

i definitely dont jive with republican or conservative

actually there are probably a few things that i align with and can embrace that would usually be considered liberal views or conservative views.

but the way they all act. especially the big two. the dems/libs and repubs/conservatives kind of disgust me.

so what is an independent to do?

realistically who would an independent vote for that would actually stand a chance?
i mean there was Bernie and we all see what happened with that

so who will there be in 2020?

it really sucks that here in reality we basically get 2 choices

we can vote dem and repub. red or blue.

yeah i know we can go green party or the peace and freedom party but in the end you would be wasting you vote.

so what is a person to do?

i just feel like i am in bizzaro land.

the whole thing stinks. how they all behave. both major parties.

i think anyone being objective would see that.

so what is an independent to do?

thanks

I was a Democrat in the early yrs of the '70's...then swung Republican...went to Independent...then realized I was a Liberal in the Millennium...

So, now...I just split my ticket/vote depending on how nuts the front runners are...

Now, I claim no-party...and you don't have to either.."Conservatively" speaking...

a reply to: theantediluvian

The fact you equate objectional political maneuvering (I happen to agree with some of the things you are objecting to) with the unfounded utter destruction of man's life and reputation as demonstrated by the left in the past few weeks is PRECISELY why so many independents, and indeed people who have long considered themselves democrats, have decided to move away.

The left has so crossed the line, all of the complaints (many valid) concerning the right, pale in comparison to the unethical and immoral by-any-means-necessary culture the democrats (and many in the MSM) have decided to pursue.

It used to be that people opposed policy. But the left has converted that approach into demonizing large portions of the American public and appear to have abandoned the very foundational principals of this nation that were designed to ensure the peaceful and equitable governance of a diverse culture of people from all walks of life.

I have spent my entire life believing in the principle that race, sex, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc are never the measure by which one judges an individual, or by which opportunities are granted, or by which fairness is ensured, only to learn now that the party traditionally viewed in modern times as the champion of that perspective uses those very things to argue my race, my sex, my religion, my ethnicity, etc are somehow inherently flawed.

For all of Trump's clearly obvious flaws (and there are many), the left's approach to opposition is a far greater danger to this nation than anything he represents.

I know the world is an imprefect place, and there are certainly bad actors to be found across the spectrum, but what I have recently seen from the left terrifies me.

Until something profound changes in the left's approach, I'll NEVER support their aim for power.

a reply to: loam

The fact you equate objectional political maneuvering (I happen to agree with some of the things you are objecting to) with the unfounded utter destruction of man's life and reputation as demonstrated by the left in the past few weeks is PRECISELY why so many independents, and indeed people who have long considered themselves democrats, have decided to move away.

It's your opinion that "the Left" is behind an "unfounded utter destruction" of Kavanaugh's reputation. It's only "unfounded" if Ford's allegation is untrue and I don't know who is telling the truth any more than you do. Whether "the left" (by which you mean congressional Democrats) acted improperly is debatable.

What I can say is that Ford came forward before Kavanaugh was nominated. She contacted the WaPo tip line in early July and around the same time, her congresswoman, Rep. Anna G. Eshoo. At the end of July, through Eshoo, a letter was forwarded to Sen. Feinstein. According to those involved, Ford asked for confidentiality and she was not at that time willing to go on the record. This continued into late August according to WaPo reporting.

Should Feinstein have shared the allegation with Grassley at that point? There's no right answer there. Would you say that WaPo should have published her allegation when she was not willing to go on the record? Of course not and in the same vein, I think that Feinstein's explanation is plausible.

Anyway, as recently as late August, Ford had determined that she not going to go on the record, upend her life, expose herself and her family to the political #storm, etc.

Then 16 days ago, the Intercept broke the story:

Dianne Feinstein Withholding Brett Kavanaugh Document From Fellow Judiciary Committee Democrats

Different sources provided different accounts of the contents of the letter, and some of the sources said they themselves had heard different versions, but the one consistent theme was that it describes an incident involving Kavanaugh and a woman while they were in high school. Kept hidden, the letter is beginning to take on a life of its own.

Obviously this has the appearance of somebody leaking to force the issue. According to Ryan Grim, it wasn't Feinstein or her staff. He could be lying. It could have been Eshoo or her staff or one of Feinsteins colleagues or their staff. The article claims multiple sources.

So where exactly is this "unfounded utter destruction of man's life and reputation" you speak of if all that's true?

The left has so crossed the line, all of the complaints (many valid) concerning the right, pale in comparison to the unethical and immoral by-any-means-necessary culture the democrats (and many in the MSM) have decided to pursue.

I disagree on pretty much every point you made starting with the above. I had a bunch typed up in response to this but as I was getting ready to hit "reply" I decided it wasn't worth continuing. There's no chance of anyone "winning" that debate and it's difficult to imagine anyone will be changing their position significantly as a result.

I think you're completely wrong. I'm sure you feel the same about me. It's sad since we seem to generally share the same ideals. Maybe one day we can all bury our partisan hatchets but that day is clearly not going to be today.

a reply to: theantediluvian

No you are wrong, there is a right answer to if feinstein should have shared the letter.

The answer is yes, for two reasons.

First, most importantly, what if ford would have never came forward? Do you think feinstein then would have never mentioned these allegations to anhyone, thus letting a man who has been accused of sexual assault on to the court? Feinstein was always going to bring up these allegations, it was just a matter of when.

The senate had every right to hear of these allegations, Had she shared that info, the fbi would have had 6 weeks to look into the allegations. This was all political by feinstein, and you know it.

The second reason that feinstien should have informed the committee about the allegations is because that is what ford wanted. You are right, she testifiesd that she became concerned when kavanaugh was on the short list.

She says she wanted the senate to know about these allegations, but didnt want her naem or letter to be released.

Yet feinstein never informed the snate of these allegations. So she went against the wishes of ford.

There is no third option; either ford intentionally didnt want the allegation released until the last minute, or she wanted it released to the senators before that and feinstein went against her wishes


And I bleiev ford testimmoney that she wanted it knwon to the senate early.

And also, one of the dmeocrats that she went to for help leaked her letter and identity. The abuse she has suyfefered by being forced public was brought on by them

They dont care about her at all though, it helped the dmeocrats politically, and thats all that mattered.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: loam

The fact you equate objectional political maneuvering (I happen to agree with some of the things you are objecting to) with the unfounded utter destruction of man's life and reputation as demonstrated by the left in the past few weeks is PRECISELY why so many independents, and indeed people who have long considered themselves democrats, have decided to move away.

It's your opinion that "the Left" is behind an "unfounded utter destruction" of Kavanaugh's reputation. It's only "unfounded" if Ford's allegation is untrue and I don't know who is telling the truth any more than you do.

Gee, I thought "unfounded" meant lacking any verified and indisputable corroborating evidence, which is exactly what we have here.

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: loam

The fact you equate objectional political maneuvering (I happen to agree with some of the things you are objecting to) with the unfounded utter destruction of man's life and reputation as demonstrated by the left in the past few weeks is PRECISELY why so many independents, and indeed people who have long considered themselves democrats, have decided to move away.

It's your opinion that "the Left" is behind an "unfounded utter destruction" of Kavanaugh's reputation. It's only "unfounded" if Ford's allegation is untrue and I don't know who is telling the truth any more than you do.

Gee, I thought "unfounded" meant lacking any verified and indisputable corroborating evidence, which is exactly what we have here.

IN fact we have evidence that just making an accusation without a police report to obtain a statement from the victim, is all you have to do to stone every other nomination ad infinitum.

Mr Jones says he saw the nominee licking a dogs gonads behind the Library on Friday's. The committee, at that point, must demand a FBI investigation to attempt to prove it not true.

Well, can we prove a negative yet?

a reply to: Justoneman

Just make sure you get 3 or 4 "witnesses" to sign sworn statements that they have no idea what Mr. Jones is talking about and you should be golden.

a reply to: Grambler

Spot on … a left leaning party that cared about individual liberty would be great!

Sign me up for that, even if right now it is just a dream