I am worried about Herschel Walker’s candidacy for the senate; I don’t think he’s up to the job. (1 Viewer)

[The General]

I didn't see the Warnock v Walker debate but some of my Georgia friends said Walker did extremely well and may have even won the debate. Waiting on the Oz v Fetterman debate to make my decision here in PA.

If Oz wasn't a Trump supporter I would give him consideration. Unfortunately supporting the traitorous former POTUS is a non-starter for me -- Fettermen has my vote by default.

Your vote. The debate is really important to me. I can't vote for a guy that is physically and mentally unfit to perform the duties of the job.

Herschel thinks he’s a cop and ran 6 hospitals.

I wouldn't vote for Herschel Walker, but I don't live in GA so my opinion on that race isn't really relevant.

Let's be honest..you aren't voting for Fetterman regardless of what happens in the debate. I assume you will vote Oz or not vote, vote 3rd party in that race?

You're right I won't vote for Fetterman for a multitude of reasons, there are very few issues where Fetterman and I align. His ability to physically and mentally do the job is just the icing on the cake. I posted the things I like and dislike about him above in an earlier post. I haven't even looked at Oz yet but I know Fetterman isn't a guy I want representing me in Washington. I don't find anything about the guy redeeming.

In the City of Philadelphia we have a real issue with crime and the DA not prosecuting the criminals and then the go out and re-offend. Fetterman's history is replete with similar cases where he is easy on criminals. A local kid was murdered around 20 years ago and the surrounding communities get together and raise funds in the kids name for scholarships. Fetterman was the lone vote to have one of the guys who committed the crime paroled.

Next week I'll look into Oz and the debate will just confirm whether I vote for Oz or someone else not named Fetterman.

I watched a 30 minute interview and he appeared mentally and physically able to do this job. I think you would get more useful information from that then these debates to be honest.

I suspect if you don't want Fetterman in office you will vote for Oz regardless as a vote to keep Fetterman out. This is like half of voters I think these days.

I would vote for a tree stump over a Fetterman-type. If we want to go single issue, releasing violent criminals out early ranks at the top. If people are ok with that, they can allow them to live in their neighborhoods, and they can rehabilitate them. Sounds like a win-win.

Do you know what the clemency process in PA involves and who are the cases that Fetterman was involved in?

No. So is he going to be tough on crime?

I'm not sure what that means TBH.

I have seen this releasing criminals talk in political ads but there is no info other than stuff like this on it so thought you might know since you wrote about it.

He spoke about a single case in this interview but I didn't really know what he was talking about without context. His answer made sense and he also deferred to his record as a Mayor on violent crime.

Just look at how crime is these days. As a D, he will fit right in line with how these cases are getting handled. The woman from NY who likes to act tough is just as bad.

The cities are the cities, they will always be D. The big change may be at the state governor level for being soft on crime.

I guess this is more of a trust in the party issue for you then. That is fair. Not sure how more effective Republicans are on crime, I think it is more of a function of economics TBH. But, I get some of the policies in big cities are a bit much even for me as a typically liberal.

Oz has never held a job in government so he has no position other than what is politically beneficial.

Googling around this article seemed pretty fair on Fetterman's background on this issue outside of just voting along party lines in regards to this issue.

This is where the trust in the party comes into play - the NY gov says she needs more data because she’s not convinced about rising crime in NYC.

I’m not familiar with the quote you are using but this is just what politicians say IMO.

To this issue I just don’t know where people get faith that a person with an R behind their name is by nature going to “fix crime”. I guess changing what is not working could be at play. If that were the case wouldn’t tossing out current R’s running cities and states with rising crime also be a thing?

Murder rates in red states are just as high as blue ones. Cities with Republican mayors have the same issues with crime.

Education, economics drive this more than which politician is in office.

 

[FairWarning]

I didn't see the Warnock v Walker debate but some of my Georgia friends said Walker did extremely well and may have even won the debate. Waiting on the Oz v Fetterman debate to make my decision here in PA.

If Oz wasn't a Trump supporter I would give him consideration. Unfortunately supporting the traitorous former POTUS is a non-starter for me -- Fettermen has my vote by default.

Your vote. The debate is really important to me. I can't vote for a guy that is physically and mentally unfit to perform the duties of the job.

Herschel thinks he’s a cop and ran 6 hospitals.

I wouldn't vote for Herschel Walker, but I don't live in GA so my opinion on that race isn't really relevant.

Let's be honest..you aren't voting for Fetterman regardless of what happens in the debate. I assume you will vote Oz or not vote, vote 3rd party in that race?

You're right I won't vote for Fetterman for a multitude of reasons, there are very few issues where Fetterman and I align. His ability to physically and mentally do the job is just the icing on the cake. I posted the things I like and dislike about him above in an earlier post. I haven't even looked at Oz yet but I know Fetterman isn't a guy I want representing me in Washington. I don't find anything about the guy redeeming.

In the City of Philadelphia we have a real issue with crime and the DA not prosecuting the criminals and then the go out and re-offend. Fetterman's history is replete with similar cases where he is easy on criminals. A local kid was murdered around 20 years ago and the surrounding communities get together and raise funds in the kids name for scholarships. Fetterman was the lone vote to have one of the guys who committed the crime paroled.

Next week I'll look into Oz and the debate will just confirm whether I vote for Oz or someone else not named Fetterman.

I watched a 30 minute interview and he appeared mentally and physically able to do this job. I think you would get more useful information from that then these debates to be honest.

I suspect if you don't want Fetterman in office you will vote for Oz regardless as a vote to keep Fetterman out. This is like half of voters I think these days.

I would vote for a tree stump over a Fetterman-type. If we want to go single issue, releasing violent criminals out early ranks at the top. If people are ok with that, they can allow them to live in their neighborhoods, and they can rehabilitate them. Sounds like a win-win.

Do you know what the clemency process in PA involves and who are the cases that Fetterman was involved in?

No. So is he going to be tough on crime?

I'm not sure what that means TBH.

I have seen this releasing criminals talk in political ads but there is no info other than stuff like this on it so thought you might know since you wrote about it.

He spoke about a single case in this interview but I didn't really know what he was talking about without context. His answer made sense and he also deferred to his record as a Mayor on violent crime.

Just look at how crime is these days. As a D, he will fit right in line with how these cases are getting handled. The woman from NY who likes to act tough is just as bad.

The cities are the cities, they will always be D. The big change may be at the state governor level for being soft on crime.

I guess this is more of a trust in the party issue for you then. That is fair. Not sure how more effective Republicans are on crime, I think it is more of a function of economics TBH. But, I get some of the policies in big cities are a bit much even for me as a typically liberal.

Oz has never held a job in government so he has no position other than what is politically beneficial.

Googling around this article seemed pretty fair on Fetterman's background on this issue outside of just voting along party lines in regards to this issue.

This is where the trust in the party comes into play - the NY gov says she needs more data because she’s not convinced about rising crime in NYC.

I’m not familiar with the quote you are using but this is just what politicians say IMO.

To this issue I just don’t know where people get faith that a person with an R behind their name is by nature going to “fix crime”. I guess changing what is not working could be at play. If that were the case wouldn’t tossing out current R’s running cities and states with rising crime also be a thing?

Murder rates in red states are just as high as blue ones. Cities with Republican mayors have the same issues with crime.

Education, economics drive this more than which politician is in office.

I guess I need to see the R’s who are easy on crime and the D’s who are tough on it. There isn’t a city with a million people that has a R mayor, and every one of those cities has higher crime and police staffing issues. It’s party groupthink at its finest.

The crime is one thing, how it’s handled is another. The two parties are worlds apart on this key point.

 

[jon_mx]

I didn't see the Warnock v Walker debate but some of my Georgia friends said Walker did extremely well and may have even won the debate. Waiting on the Oz v Fetterman debate to make my decision here in PA.

If Oz wasn't a Trump supporter I would give him consideration. Unfortunately supporting the traitorous former POTUS is a non-starter for me -- Fettermen has my vote by default.

Your vote. The debate is really important to me. I can't vote for a guy that is physically and mentally unfit to perform the duties of the job.

Herschel thinks he’s a cop and ran 6 hospitals.

I wouldn't vote for Herschel Walker, but I don't live in GA so my opinion on that race isn't really relevant.

Let's be honest..you aren't voting for Fetterman regardless of what happens in the debate. I assume you will vote Oz or not vote, vote 3rd party in that race?

You're right I won't vote for Fetterman for a multitude of reasons, there are very few issues where Fetterman and I align. His ability to physically and mentally do the job is just the icing on the cake. I posted the things I like and dislike about him above in an earlier post. I haven't even looked at Oz yet but I know Fetterman isn't a guy I want representing me in Washington. I don't find anything about the guy redeeming.

In the City of Philadelphia we have a real issue with crime and the DA not prosecuting the criminals and then the go out and re-offend. Fetterman's history is replete with similar cases where he is easy on criminals. A local kid was murdered around 20 years ago and the surrounding communities get together and raise funds in the kids name for scholarships. Fetterman was the lone vote to have one of the guys who committed the crime paroled.

Next week I'll look into Oz and the debate will just confirm whether I vote for Oz or someone else not named Fetterman.

I watched a 30 minute interview and he appeared mentally and physically able to do this job. I think you would get more useful information from that then these debates to be honest.

I suspect if you don't want Fetterman in office you will vote for Oz regardless as a vote to keep Fetterman out. This is like half of voters I think these days.

I would vote for a tree stump over a Fetterman-type. If we want to go single issue, releasing violent criminals out early ranks at the top. If people are ok with that, they can allow them to live in their neighborhoods, and they can rehabilitate them. Sounds like a win-win.

Do you know what the clemency process in PA involves and who are the cases that Fetterman was involved in?

Yes.

I posted above that there is one case that really hits home because we still do volunteer work with the family every year of the kid who was murdered back when I was a teen. The young kid was brutally beaten with a baseball bat and then shot in the back. The group of kids who did the crime said they picked their victim "because he was white." Fetterman was the lone vote at the parole hearing to release the guy who bragged that he "broke his bat" over the kids head. This isn't the only case that he's done so, but this is one that I am intimately familiar with. Fetterman says he wants to keep 1st degree murders in jail and then his voting record on the hearing panel suggests otherwise. This type of soft on criminals stances that those in power have (also done by Philly DA Larry Krasner) has caused crime to skyrocket here in Philadelphia.

Democrats are soft on black criminals. In a case where a white conservstive male clearly defends himself against a mob, Democrats all of a sudden become very hard in crime. Many were pissed Kyle was released on 'only' $2 million in bail and many on the left all of a sudden we're death penalty supporters. I don't see how these flips can be describe as anything but pure ugly racism.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I didn't see the Warnock v Walker debate but some of my Georgia friends said Walker did extremely well and may have even won the debate. Waiting on the Oz v Fetterman debate to make my decision here in PA.

If Oz wasn't a Trump supporter I would give him consideration. Unfortunately supporting the traitorous former POTUS is a non-starter for me -- Fettermen has my vote by default.

Your vote. The debate is really important to me. I can't vote for a guy that is physically and mentally unfit to perform the duties of the job.

Herschel thinks he’s a cop and ran 6 hospitals.

I wouldn't vote for Herschel Walker, but I don't live in GA so my opinion on that race isn't really relevant.

Let's be honest..you aren't voting for Fetterman regardless of what happens in the debate. I assume you will vote Oz or not vote, vote 3rd party in that race?

You're right I won't vote for Fetterman for a multitude of reasons, there are very few issues where Fetterman and I align. His ability to physically and mentally do the job is just the icing on the cake. I posted the things I like and dislike about him above in an earlier post. I haven't even looked at Oz yet but I know Fetterman isn't a guy I want representing me in Washington. I don't find anything about the guy redeeming.

In the City of Philadelphia we have a real issue with crime and the DA not prosecuting the criminals and then the go out and re-offend. Fetterman's history is replete with similar cases where he is easy on criminals. A local kid was murdered around 20 years ago and the surrounding communities get together and raise funds in the kids name for scholarships. Fetterman was the lone vote to have one of the guys who committed the crime paroled.

Next week I'll look into Oz and the debate will just confirm whether I vote for Oz or someone else not named Fetterman.

I watched a 30 minute interview and he appeared mentally and physically able to do this job. I think you would get more useful information from that then these debates to be honest.

I suspect if you don't want Fetterman in office you will vote for Oz regardless as a vote to keep Fetterman out. This is like half of voters I think these days.

I would vote for a tree stump over a Fetterman-type. If we want to go single issue, releasing violent criminals out early ranks at the top. If people are ok with that, they can allow them to live in their neighborhoods, and they can rehabilitate them. Sounds like a win-win.

Do you know what the clemency process in PA involves and who are the cases that Fetterman was involved in?

No. So is he going to be tough on crime?

I'm not sure what that means TBH.

I have seen this releasing criminals talk in political ads but there is no info other than stuff like this on it so thought you might know since you wrote about it.

He spoke about a single case in this interview but I didn't really know what he was talking about without context. His answer made sense and he also deferred to his record as a Mayor on violent crime.

Just look at how crime is these days. As a D, he will fit right in line with how these cases are getting handled. The woman from NY who likes to act tough is just as bad.

The cities are the cities, they will always be D. The big change may be at the state governor level for being soft on crime.

I guess this is more of a trust in the party issue for you then. That is fair. Not sure how more effective Republicans are on crime, I think it is more of a function of economics TBH. But, I get some of the policies in big cities are a bit much even for me as a typically liberal.

Oz has never held a job in government so he has no position other than what is politically beneficial.

Googling around this article seemed pretty fair on Fetterman's background on this issue outside of just voting along party lines in regards to this issue.

This is where the trust in the party comes into play - the NY gov says she needs more data because she’s not convinced about rising crime in NYC.

I’m not familiar with the quote you are using but this is just what politicians say IMO.

To this issue I just don’t know where people get faith that a person with an R behind their name is by nature going to “fix crime”. I guess changing what is not working could be at play. If that were the case wouldn’t tossing out current R’s running cities and states with rising crime also be a thing?

Murder rates in red states are just as high as blue ones. Cities with Republican mayors have the same issues with crime.

Education, economics drive this more than which politician is in office.

I guess I need to see the R’s who are easy on crime and the D’s who are tough on it. There isn’t a city with a million people that has a R mayor, and every one of those cities has higher crime and police staffing issues. It’s party groupthink at its finest.

The crime is one thing, how it’s handled is another. The two parties are worlds apart on this key point.

Just looks at this posted in these threads about the murder rates in R areas, why Jacksonville is so dangerous, or why the picture changes about Chicago a bit when you use per capita stats.

 

[Godsbrother]

I didn't see the Warnock v Walker debate but some of my Georgia friends said Walker did extremely well and may have even won the debate. Waiting on the Oz v Fetterman debate to make my decision here in PA.

If Oz wasn't a Trump supporter I would give him consideration. Unfortunately supporting the traitorous former POTUS is a non-starter for me -- Fettermen has my vote by default.

Your vote. The debate is really important to me. I can't vote for a guy that is physically and mentally unfit to perform the duties of the job.

Herschel thinks he’s a cop and ran 6 hospitals.

I wouldn't vote for Herschel Walker, but I don't live in GA so my opinion on that race isn't really relevant.

Let's be honest..you aren't voting for Fetterman regardless of what happens in the debate. I assume you will vote Oz or not vote, vote 3rd party in that race?

You're right I won't vote for Fetterman for a multitude of reasons, there are very few issues where Fetterman and I align. His ability to physically and mentally do the job is just the icing on the cake. I posted the things I like and dislike about him above in an earlier post. I haven't even looked at Oz yet but I know Fetterman isn't a guy I want representing me in Washington. I don't find anything about the guy redeeming.

In the City of Philadelphia we have a real issue with crime and the DA not prosecuting the criminals and then the go out and re-offend. Fetterman's history is replete with similar cases where he is easy on criminals. A local kid was murdered around 20 years ago and the surrounding communities get together and raise funds in the kids name for scholarships. Fetterman was the lone vote to have one of the guys who committed the crime paroled.

Next week I'll look into Oz and the debate will just confirm whether I vote for Oz or someone else not named Fetterman.

I watched a 30 minute interview and he appeared mentally and physically able to do this job. I think you would get more useful information from that then these debates to be honest.

I suspect if you don't want Fetterman in office you will vote for Oz regardless as a vote to keep Fetterman out. This is like half of voters I think these days.

I would vote for a tree stump over a Fetterman-type. If we want to go single issue, releasing violent criminals out early ranks at the top. If people are ok with that, they can allow them to live in their neighborhoods, and they can rehabilitate them. Sounds like a win-win.

Do you know what the clemency process in PA involves and who are the cases that Fetterman was involved in?

Yes.

I posted above that there is one case that really hits home because we still do volunteer work with the family every year of the kid who was murdered back when I was a teen. The young kid was brutally beaten with a baseball bat and then shot in the back. The group of kids who did the crime said they picked their victim "because he was white." Fetterman was the lone vote at the parole hearing to release the guy who bragged that he "broke his bat" over the kids head. This isn't the only case that he's done so, but this is one that I am intimately familiar with. Fetterman says he wants to keep 1st degree murders in jail and then his voting record on the hearing panel suggests otherwise. This type of soft on criminals stances that those in power have (also done by Philly DA Larry Krasner) has caused crime to skyrocket here in Philadelphia.

This is a rough story to read. Cases involving murder would be very difficult to let someone go free before their time was up. Dealing with this on a regular basis would be pretty brutal.

Fetterman should explain his votes on these and others, all I have seen is he has said he agreed with law enforcement experts 90% of the time and that he took every case individually and weighed each very carefully. That is what I would ask if anyone in this position.

I don’t think a debate setting with 1:30 timed answers will be adequate to do this.

I do believe in clemency and I am certain that in some cases from the 80’s a life sentence is too much. Tough job to determine.

This case involved a murder in 1989 and so it is difficult to get a lot of details. Apparently the attack was in response to an attack a week earlier involving the leader of the five Hispanic guys that killed the white kid.

It was a very brutal murder and without knowing any of the details I do not think I would have voted for clemency. That said I do agree that in some cases involving second or third degree murder that a life sentence is not appropriate.

The GOP ads claiming that Fetterman wants to eliminate life sentences for murderers, like most political ads including those against Oz, is an exaggeration and not totally accurate.

 

[FairWarning]

I didn't see the Warnock v Walker debate but some of my Georgia friends said Walker did extremely well and may have even won the debate. Waiting on the Oz v Fetterman debate to make my decision here in PA.

If Oz wasn't a Trump supporter I would give him consideration. Unfortunately supporting the traitorous former POTUS is a non-starter for me -- Fettermen has my vote by default.

Your vote. The debate is really important to me. I can't vote for a guy that is physically and mentally unfit to perform the duties of the job.

Herschel thinks he’s a cop and ran 6 hospitals.

I wouldn't vote for Herschel Walker, but I don't live in GA so my opinion on that race isn't really relevant.

Let's be honest..you aren't voting for Fetterman regardless of what happens in the debate. I assume you will vote Oz or not vote, vote 3rd party in that race?

You're right I won't vote for Fetterman for a multitude of reasons, there are very few issues where Fetterman and I align. His ability to physically and mentally do the job is just the icing on the cake. I posted the things I like and dislike about him above in an earlier post. I haven't even looked at Oz yet but I know Fetterman isn't a guy I want representing me in Washington. I don't find anything about the guy redeeming.

In the City of Philadelphia we have a real issue with crime and the DA not prosecuting the criminals and then the go out and re-offend. Fetterman's history is replete with similar cases where he is easy on criminals. A local kid was murdered around 20 years ago and the surrounding communities get together and raise funds in the kids name for scholarships. Fetterman was the lone vote to have one of the guys who committed the crime paroled.

Next week I'll look into Oz and the debate will just confirm whether I vote for Oz or someone else not named Fetterman.

I watched a 30 minute interview and he appeared mentally and physically able to do this job. I think you would get more useful information from that then these debates to be honest.

I suspect if you don't want Fetterman in office you will vote for Oz regardless as a vote to keep Fetterman out. This is like half of voters I think these days.

I would vote for a tree stump over a Fetterman-type. If we want to go single issue, releasing violent criminals out early ranks at the top. If people are ok with that, they can allow them to live in their neighborhoods, and they can rehabilitate them. Sounds like a win-win.

Do you know what the clemency process in PA involves and who are the cases that Fetterman was involved in?

No. So is he going to be tough on crime?

I'm not sure what that means TBH.

I have seen this releasing criminals talk in political ads but there is no info other than stuff like this on it so thought you might know since you wrote about it.

He spoke about a single case in this interview but I didn't really know what he was talking about without context. His answer made sense and he also deferred to his record as a Mayor on violent crime.

Just look at how crime is these days. As a D, he will fit right in line with how these cases are getting handled. The woman from NY who likes to act tough is just as bad.

The cities are the cities, they will always be D. The big change may be at the state governor level for being soft on crime.

I guess this is more of a trust in the party issue for you then. That is fair. Not sure how more effective Republicans are on crime, I think it is more of a function of economics TBH. But, I get some of the policies in big cities are a bit much even for me as a typically liberal.

Oz has never held a job in government so he has no position other than what is politically beneficial.

Googling around this article seemed pretty fair on Fetterman's background on this issue outside of just voting along party lines in regards to this issue.

This is where the trust in the party comes into play - the NY gov says she needs more data because she’s not convinced about rising crime in NYC.

I’m not familiar with the quote you are using but this is just what politicians say IMO.

To this issue I just don’t know where people get faith that a person with an R behind their name is by nature going to “fix crime”. I guess changing what is not working could be at play. If that were the case wouldn’t tossing out current R’s running cities and states with rising crime also be a thing?

Murder rates in red states are just as high as blue ones. Cities with Republican mayors have the same issues with crime.

Education, economics drive this more than which politician is in office.

I guess I need to see the R’s who are easy on crime and the D’s who are tough on it. There isn’t a city with a million people that has a R mayor, and every one of those cities has higher crime and police staffing issues. It’s party groupthink at its finest.

The crime is one thing, how it’s handled is another. The two parties are worlds apart on this key point.

Just looks at this posted in these threads about the murder rates in R areas, why Jacksonville is so dangerous, or why the picture changes about Chicago a bit when you use per capita stats.

You’re totally missing the point. Is Jacksonville letting their criminals out on no-cash bond? Maybe they are.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I didn't see the Warnock v Walker debate but some of my Georgia friends said Walker did extremely well and may have even won the debate. Waiting on the Oz v Fetterman debate to make my decision here in PA.

If Oz wasn't a Trump supporter I would give him consideration. Unfortunately supporting the traitorous former POTUS is a non-starter for me -- Fettermen has my vote by default.

Your vote. The debate is really important to me. I can't vote for a guy that is physically and mentally unfit to perform the duties of the job.

Herschel thinks he’s a cop and ran 6 hospitals.

I wouldn't vote for Herschel Walker, but I don't live in GA so my opinion on that race isn't really relevant.

Let's be honest..you aren't voting for Fetterman regardless of what happens in the debate. I assume you will vote Oz or not vote, vote 3rd party in that race?

You're right I won't vote for Fetterman for a multitude of reasons, there are very few issues where Fetterman and I align. His ability to physically and mentally do the job is just the icing on the cake. I posted the things I like and dislike about him above in an earlier post. I haven't even looked at Oz yet but I know Fetterman isn't a guy I want representing me in Washington. I don't find anything about the guy redeeming.

In the City of Philadelphia we have a real issue with crime and the DA not prosecuting the criminals and then the go out and re-offend. Fetterman's history is replete with similar cases where he is easy on criminals. A local kid was murdered around 20 years ago and the surrounding communities get together and raise funds in the kids name for scholarships. Fetterman was the lone vote to have one of the guys who committed the crime paroled.

Next week I'll look into Oz and the debate will just confirm whether I vote for Oz or someone else not named Fetterman.

I watched a 30 minute interview and he appeared mentally and physically able to do this job. I think you would get more useful information from that then these debates to be honest.

I suspect if you don't want Fetterman in office you will vote for Oz regardless as a vote to keep Fetterman out. This is like half of voters I think these days.

I would vote for a tree stump over a Fetterman-type. If we want to go single issue, releasing violent criminals out early ranks at the top. If people are ok with that, they can allow them to live in their neighborhoods, and they can rehabilitate them. Sounds like a win-win.

Do you know what the clemency process in PA involves and who are the cases that Fetterman was involved in?

No. So is he going to be tough on crime?

I'm not sure what that means TBH.

I have seen this releasing criminals talk in political ads but there is no info other than stuff like this on it so thought you might know since you wrote about it.

He spoke about a single case in this interview but I didn't really know what he was talking about without context. His answer made sense and he also deferred to his record as a Mayor on violent crime.

Just look at how crime is these days. As a D, he will fit right in line with how these cases are getting handled. The woman from NY who likes to act tough is just as bad.

The cities are the cities, they will always be D. The big change may be at the state governor level for being soft on crime.

I guess this is more of a trust in the party issue for you then. That is fair. Not sure how more effective Republicans are on crime, I think it is more of a function of economics TBH. But, I get some of the policies in big cities are a bit much even for me as a typically liberal.

Oz has never held a job in government so he has no position other than what is politically beneficial.

Googling around this article seemed pretty fair on Fetterman's background on this issue outside of just voting along party lines in regards to this issue.

This is where the trust in the party comes into play - the NY gov says she needs more data because she’s not convinced about rising crime in NYC.

I’m not familiar with the quote you are using but this is just what politicians say IMO.

To this issue I just don’t know where people get faith that a person with an R behind their name is by nature going to “fix crime”. I guess changing what is not working could be at play. If that were the case wouldn’t tossing out current R’s running cities and states with rising crime also be a thing?

Murder rates in red states are just as high as blue ones. Cities with Republican mayors have the same issues with crime.

Education, economics drive this more than which politician is in office.

I guess I need to see the R’s who are easy on crime and the D’s who are tough on it. There isn’t a city with a million people that has a R mayor, and every one of those cities has higher crime and police staffing issues. It’s party groupthink at its finest.

The crime is one thing, how it’s handled is another. The two parties are worlds apart on this key point.

Just looks at this posted in these threads about the murder rates in R areas, why Jacksonville is so dangerous, or why the picture changes about Chicago a bit when you use per capita stats.

You’re totally missing the point. Is Jacksonville letting their criminals out on no-cash bond? Maybe they are.

I don't know. Just saying maybe this issue isn't just an R/D thing. If they aren't doing those things, why are crime and murder just as high there, and how are they any tougher on crime if it is still high there?

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Senators have zero impact on this.

 

[Van Dyman]

Conway,

You are being intentionally obtuse on purpose. There is a clear open vitriol and aggression by the radical left and the activist complicit left leaning MSM against Christians in general.

When they were not coming out to vote in droves, they were left alone and ignored. The DNC, the DCCC, the Super Delegates, the establishment Democrats, the Progressives, the Marxists, none of them considered the voting block worth engaging and supporting. It was a cost vs benefit analysis in terms of resources allocated against potential votes won or lost. Now that this group is voting in massive numbers, they are being denounced and vilified.

Team Blue abandoned poor white rural Christian America. It was a tactical political decision. Well it backfired.

If Joe Bryant doesn't edge into arguments on this forum, it's because he wants to hold a position of being as apolitical as possible, as he's the site owner. It's a type of stance that I wished Maurile Tremblay, biased hard left with the subtlety of a battering ram, would adopt.

You aren't hard rolling Joe Bryant because you disagree, you are doing it because you know he will restrain himself from sparring back with you.

The savagery against Christians was made clear during Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearing for SCOTUS. That entire display was shameful and was strategic political idiocy by Team Blue. There was no need to antagonize the White Evangelical base like that. It would only harden the FedSoc assembly line for Conservative Catholics.

If the radical left here REPLACED every instance of mockery against Christians with "African American" or "LGBT", then people would finally see how punitive and damaging the behavior has become in modern times.

Poor white rural Christian America committed the sin of simply going out to vote. Lots of them. Waves of them. Instead of seeing them as Americans exercising their political voice, they are castigated as bigots, racists, misogynists and full of hatred. The total price paid for Team Blue's buyer remorse.

I am not a Christian. I don't believe in God. If there was a God, he'd never forgive someone with as much blood on my hands as I have. But I see those Christians as AMERICANS FIRST.

I love America. I was a homeless teenager and this country allowed a pathway so I could work hard and make the most of the opportunities before me and build a real life, where I could bring real value to the world. Radicals like you and other bad faith actors here want to try to shame those who love America. It's why there is this insidious manipulation to remove the total American identity away before going into yet another woke attack.

I do not require you to love America. Good men died for your right to take their sacrifices for granted. But I will not stand idly by while you disparge those who do love this country.

I think you're glossing over the recent rise of Christian Nationalism in the Evangelical community. The "radical left" and "left leaning MSM" aren't "against Christians in general". They're against the growing threat of Christian Nationalism. And it's not just the left and it's not just non-Christians. It's a prominent concern for those in today's Christian churches.

Here's a good article that explains what Christian Nationalism is and how it's different from Christianity and patriotism. Christianity Today article

All kinds of efforts are being made within the church to deal with this issue. Here's an example.

We also have a thread on the topic where Christians on this board lament their own experience in the church. Thread

The bolded was very informative and offered some interesting insight into how the Christian community is attempting to address it.

 

[steelcityman]

@Snotbubbles this is just a sampling of where fetterman stands on some issues. What do you disagree with from this list?

Universal pre-k
Expand and improve health care access for veterans
Small towns and rural communities are the heart and soul of this country – it’s time we invest in them
Protect Social Security from Republican attacks, and I’ll support efforts to lower the Medicare eligibility age to 60 while expanding its benefits to include vision, hearing, and dental care
Expand voting rights and push for reforms that get big money out of politics and prevent politicians from picking their voters through partisan gerrymandering
Ban Members of Congress from holding or trading stocks
Access to safe and legal abortion into federal law by passing the Women’s Health Protection Act
End the war on drugs by fighting to deschedule marijuana, expunge the records of those convicted of nonviolent marijuana offenses, and prevent the monopolization of this vibrant new industry

I don't like his policy positions on criminal justice reform, energy, immigration or abolishing the filibuster.

I don't have any kids in pre-k. Not a relevant topic for me.

I'm pro-life so his stance on abortion doesn't align with me.

I live in the city, why do I care about investing in small towns and rural communities?

Expand and improve health care access for veterans. Ok sounds great, how does he plan to do that?

Protect Social Security. Again, sounds great, how?

Ban Members from Congress for holding or trading stock. Sounds great, no chance of that even being brought to a vote but it's a nice talking point. Maybe he can float term limits as well. They both have the same chance of passage.

So basically, if I want marijuana passed I should vote for him?

With his mental capacity I'm sure he'll be able to debate his fellow Senators to sway them to his position.

Protect SSI by not electing the people who want to get rid of it. Pretty simple. Its a yes or no, either a person wants to get rid of it, or they dont. If you do want to get rid of it, I'd never vote for that candidate, no matter D or R.


Will PA folks out east watch a Phillies playoff game or the Fetterman/Oz debate?

 

[Snotbubbles]

@Snotbubbles this is just a sampling of where fetterman stands on some issues. What do you disagree with from this list?

Universal pre-k
Expand and improve health care access for veterans
Small towns and rural communities are the heart and soul of this country – it’s time we invest in them
Protect Social Security from Republican attacks, and I’ll support efforts to lower the Medicare eligibility age to 60 while expanding its benefits to include vision, hearing, and dental care
Expand voting rights and push for reforms that get big money out of politics and prevent politicians from picking their voters through partisan gerrymandering
Ban Members of Congress from holding or trading stocks
Access to safe and legal abortion into federal law by passing the Women’s Health Protection Act
End the war on drugs by fighting to deschedule marijuana, expunge the records of those convicted of nonviolent marijuana offenses, and prevent the monopolization of this vibrant new industry

I don't like his policy positions on criminal justice reform, energy, immigration or abolishing the filibuster.

I don't have any kids in pre-k. Not a relevant topic for me.

I'm pro-life so his stance on abortion doesn't align with me.

I live in the city, why do I care about investing in small towns and rural communities?

Expand and improve health care access for veterans. Ok sounds great, how does he plan to do that?

Protect Social Security. Again, sounds great, how?

Ban Members from Congress for holding or trading stock. Sounds great, no chance of that even being brought to a vote but it's a nice talking point. Maybe he can float term limits as well. They both have the same chance of passage.

So basically, if I want marijuana passed I should vote for him?

With his mental capacity I'm sure he'll be able to debate his fellow Senators to sway them to his position.

Protect SSI by not electing the people who want to get rid of it. Pretty simple. Its a yes or no, either a person wants to get rid of it, or they dont. If you do want to get rid of it, I'd never vote for that candidate, no matter D or R.


Will PA folks out east watch a Phillies playoff game or the Fetterman/Oz debate?

SSI is nothing more than a ponzi scheme.

 

[steelcityman]

Yep. Here it is

Thank you. After watching that video, on a scale of 1 (not concerned at all) to 10 (extremely concerned) how concerned are you about his health?

He can read all those words on that screen, and answer questions, thats impressive to me. He's in better mental condition than Trump or Biden. I'd give my concern level a 2. He's probably in a lot better health than he was 6+ months ago.

 

[The General]

Yep. Here it is

Thank you. After watching that video, on a scale of 1 (not concerned at all) to 10 (extremely concerned) how concerned are you about his health?

He can read all those words on that screen, and answer questions, thats impressive to me. He's in better mental condition than Trump or Biden. I'd give my concern level a 2. He's probably in a lot better health than he was 6+ months ago.

Right. The speech issue and that he has to read the questions is a bit shocking without explanation. This is on him and was a political miscalculation in retrospect IMO.

Airing out your short comings is difficult and hard to process so I get it.

 

[Rich Conway]

Will PA folks out east watch a Phillies playoff game or the Fetterman/Oz debate?

Is this a rhetorical question?

 

[the moops]

@Snotbubbles this is just a sampling of where fetterman stands on some issues. What do you disagree with from this list?

Universal pre-k
Expand and improve health care access for veterans
Small towns and rural communities are the heart and soul of this country – it’s time we invest in them
Protect Social Security from Republican attacks, and I’ll support efforts to lower the Medicare eligibility age to 60 while expanding its benefits to include vision, hearing, and dental care
Expand voting rights and push for reforms that get big money out of politics and prevent politicians from picking their voters through partisan gerrymandering
Ban Members of Congress from holding or trading stocks
Access to safe and legal abortion into federal law by passing the Women’s Health Protection Act
End the war on drugs by fighting to deschedule marijuana, expunge the records of those convicted of nonviolent marijuana offenses, and prevent the monopolization of this vibrant new industry

I don't like his policy positions on criminal justice reform, energy, immigration or abolishing the filibuster.

I don't have any kids in pre-k. Not a relevant topic for me.

I'm pro-life so his stance on abortion doesn't align with me.

I live in the city, why do I care about investing in small towns and rural communities?

Expand and improve health care access for veterans. Ok sounds great, how does he plan to do that?

Protect Social Security. Again, sounds great, how?

Ban Members from Congress for holding or trading stock. Sounds great, no chance of that even being brought to a vote but it's a nice talking point. Maybe he can float term limits as well. They both have the same chance of passage.

So basically, if I want marijuana passed I should vote for him?

With his mental capacity I'm sure he'll be able to debate his fellow Senators to sway them to his position.

Protect SSI by not electing the people who want to get rid of it. Pretty simple. Its a yes or no, either a person wants to get rid of it, or they dont. If you do want to get rid of it, I'd never vote for that candidate, no matter D or R.


Will PA folks out east watch a Phillies playoff game or the Fetterman/Oz debate?

SSI is nothing more than a ponzi scheme.

I hate to be a broken record.

But you are against SSI. You are pro-life. You don't care about family access to pre-K or childcare. You disagree with pretty generic democratic issues of energy or immigration.

Why exactly are you a registered democrat?

 

[Snotbubbles]

@Snotbubbles this is just a sampling of where fetterman stands on some issues. What do you disagree with from this list?

Universal pre-k
Expand and improve health care access for veterans
Small towns and rural communities are the heart and soul of this country – it’s time we invest in them
Protect Social Security from Republican attacks, and I’ll support efforts to lower the Medicare eligibility age to 60 while expanding its benefits to include vision, hearing, and dental care
Expand voting rights and push for reforms that get big money out of politics and prevent politicians from picking their voters through partisan gerrymandering
Ban Members of Congress from holding or trading stocks
Access to safe and legal abortion into federal law by passing the Women’s Health Protection Act
End the war on drugs by fighting to deschedule marijuana, expunge the records of those convicted of nonviolent marijuana offenses, and prevent the monopolization of this vibrant new industry

I don't like his policy positions on criminal justice reform, energy, immigration or abolishing the filibuster.

I don't have any kids in pre-k. Not a relevant topic for me.

I'm pro-life so his stance on abortion doesn't align with me.

I live in the city, why do I care about investing in small towns and rural communities?

Expand and improve health care access for veterans. Ok sounds great, how does he plan to do that?

Protect Social Security. Again, sounds great, how?

Ban Members from Congress for holding or trading stock. Sounds great, no chance of that even being brought to a vote but it's a nice talking point. Maybe he can float term limits as well. They both have the same chance of passage.

So basically, if I want marijuana passed I should vote for him?

With his mental capacity I'm sure he'll be able to debate his fellow Senators to sway them to his position.

Protect SSI by not electing the people who want to get rid of it. Pretty simple. Its a yes or no, either a person wants to get rid of it, or they dont. If you do want to get rid of it, I'd never vote for that candidate, no matter D or R.


Will PA folks out east watch a Phillies playoff game or the Fetterman/Oz debate?

SSI is nothing more than a ponzi scheme.

I hate to be a broken record.

But you are against SSI. You are pro-life. You don't care about family access to pre-K or childcare. You disagree with pretty generic democratic issues of energy or immigration.

Why exactly are you a registered democrat?

Just to make sure I follow you. I'm in favor of strong borders, energy independence, low taxes, backing the military and police and I want tough on crime policies.

Are you saying that Democrats don't want those things?

 

[massraider]

Are you saying that Democrats don't want those things?

Oh, so you're saying Republicans DON'T want those things?

 

[KarmaPolice]

It's funny how hard it is to answer direct questions in here sometimes.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

In some areas it makes sense to register with a party so you can vote in the primaries, which may be more important than the general. I could see Philly being one of those areas.

 

[the moops]

ust to make sure I follow you. I'm in favor of strong borders, energy independence, low taxes, backing the military and police and I want tough on crime policies.

Are you saying that Democrats don't want those things?

You do follow. If we listed the top 10 priorities of democrats and republicans you just listed 5 of the top 7 republican priorities. And if you included your pro life stance you read like a prototypical republican.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Are you saying that Democrats don't want those things?

Oh, so you're saying Republicans DON'T want those things?

I'm saying I'm a Democrat. @the moops said I don't follow the Democratic platform. Those are my stances on some of the major issues. So again, I didn't make the comment that "why am I a Democrat" but if the Democrats want weak borders, be dependent on pariah countries for energy, want high taxes, want to defund the police and want to be soft on crime, then I guess I am a Republican. So what exactly do the Democrats stand for if I'm not a Democrat?

 

[Snotbubbles]

ust to make sure I follow you. I'm in favor of strong borders, energy independence, low taxes, backing the military and police and I want tough on crime policies.

Are you saying that Democrats don't want those things?

You do follow. If we listed the top 10 priorities of democrats and republicans you just listed 5 of the top 7 republican priorities. And if you included your pro life stance you read like a prototypical republican.

A majority of Americans want restrictions on abortion. I've already posted on these forums that I would allow access to abortion up to 10 weeks after that only for emergencies. But I consider myself pro-life because the only options I'm given are total ban or abortion up to birth and I don't morally agree with abortion up to birth. At some point, the unborn child feels pain, has a developed brain/heart/lungs etc and can survive outside the womb. Allowing an abortion to such a life is abhorrent IMO.

 

[massraider]

So what exactly do the Democrats stand for if I'm not a Democrat?

You're a Democrat, but don't know their platform?

 

[massraider]

I love pretend-y obtuse-y conversations borne out of dishonesty. Let's do this all day.


You ask a question that begins "so what you saying is...?"

Then I'll answer with another question that begins with "So" that misrepresents the other person.

 

[Snotbubbles]

6. Ambivalent Right

Largely consistent with core conservative values about business, race and gender, but more moderate on social issues including abortion and same-sex marriage. Very few want Trump to run again in 2024.

www.pewresearch.org

I just did a party affiliation quiz. I got ambivalent right.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I love pretend-y obtuse-y conversations borne out of dishonesty. Let's do this all day.


You ask a question that begins "so what you saying is...?"

Then I'll answer with another question that begins with "So" that misrepresents the other person.

Nothing obtusy about my positions. I'm more Libertarian than Democrat.

 

[Snotbubbles]

So what exactly do the Democrats stand for if I'm not a Democrat?

You're a Democrat, but don't know their platform?

I don't know the Republican platform either.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I love pretend-y obtuse-y conversations borne out of dishonesty. Let's do this all day.


You ask a question that begins "so what you saying is...?"

Then I'll answer with another question that begins with "So" that misrepresents the other person.

So what you are saying is you don't want to have a discussion?

 

[joffer]

So what exactly do the Democrats stand for if I'm not a Democrat?

You're a Democrat, but don't know their platform?

”I don’t support Trump, I just defend everything he does”

 

[Gatorman]

So what exactly do the Democrats stand for if I'm not a Democrat?

You're a Democrat, but don't know their platform?

”I don’t support Trump, I just defend everything he does”

You forgot the follow up: "I'm a libertarian!"

 

[Desert_Power]

So what exactly do the Democrats stand for if I'm not a Democrat?

You're a Democrat, but don't know their platform?

”I don’t support Trump, I just defend everything he does”

You forgot the follow up: "I'm a libertarian!"

I think "ambivalent right" was a good bucket for Snotbubbles. Based on his avatar, he may be from a part of the country that traditionally had more fiscally conservative democrats leading to the party affiliation. IMO, he's not a poster that operates in bad faith like y'all are riffing about.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I don't know the Republican platform either.

Let me get you up to speed. "Democrats are bad." Now you know their platform.

 

[the moops]

I just did a party affiliation quiz. I got ambivalent right.

Then you probably don't align with much of the democrats platform. You might be a man without a party, but you should stop with the "I'm a democrat who can't vote for Fetterman because of his stance on the issues".

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I don't agree with @Snotbubbles on much, but I don't understand why people in this thread keep playing gotcha with him. Yeah, it seems odd that he calls himself a Democrat while generally supporting Republican positions, but party identification can be a weird thing sometimes. For those of us who are highly engaged in politics and know exactly what we believe and which politicians support those beliefs, it seems hard to fathom. But I suspect there a lot of SBs out there whose views/ID aren't aligned in ways that we nerds think is "normal". I was listening to a podcast the other day where someone described a focus-group participant who had voted for Trump, was high on DeSantis in '24, but also expressed admiration for AOC.

In any event, who cares? Maybe SB is on a slow march away from the Dems, and in a few years will be a garden-variety conservative Republican. Maybe there's some reason he'll feel the need to maintain his connection to the Democratic Party, even if he never votes for them. I really don't see why any of it affects any of us.

 

[rockaction]

I don't agree with @Snotbubbles on much, but I don't understand why people in this thread keep playing gotcha with him. Yeah, it seems odd that he calls himself a Democrat while generally supporting Republican positions, but party identification can be a weird thing sometimes. For those of us who are highly engaged in politics and know exactly what we believe and which politicians support those beliefs, it seems hard to fathom. But I suspect there a lot of SBs out there whose views/ID aren't aligned in ways that we nerds think is "normal". I was listening to a podcast the other day where someone described a focus-group participant who had voted for Trump, was high on DeSantis in '24, but also expressed admiration for AOC.

In any event, who cares? Maybe SB is on a slow march away from the Dems, and in a few years will be a garden-variety conservative Republican. Maybe there's some reason he'll feel the need to maintain his connection to the Democratic Party, even if he never votes for them. I really don't see why any of it affects any of us.

People worry about it quite simply, because his being a "Democrat" who agrees with none of the platform while claiming the D party is moving away from him suddenly when the issues have been constant for fifty years or so is disingenuous. Or unaware and simplistic. Either way, it's a message board. People are tired of hearing their own party is moving away from those in the supposed "center" of things. That's why it becomes an issue.

Easy to see why, really. It paints one party as moving too far left and therefore abandoning its centered, moderate voters.

However, this voter is clearly a Republican in all but name. That's why people care.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I don't agree with @Snotbubbles on much, but I don't understand why people in this thread keep playing gotcha with him. Yeah, it seems odd that he calls himself a Democrat while generally supporting Republican positions, but party identification can be a weird thing sometimes. For those of us who are highly engaged in politics and know exactly what we believe and which politicians support those beliefs, it seems hard to fathom. But I suspect there a lot of SBs out there whose views/ID aren't aligned in ways that we nerds think is "normal". I was listening to a podcast the other day where someone described a focus-group participant who had voted for Trump, was high on DeSantis in '24, but also expressed admiration for AOC.

In any event, who cares? Maybe SB is on a slow march away from the Dems, and in a few years will be a garden-variety conservative Republican. Maybe there's some reason he'll feel the need to maintain his connection to the Democratic Party, even if he never votes for them. I really don't see why any of it affects any of us.

People worry about it quite simply, because his being a "Democrat" who agrees with none of the platform while claiming the D party is moving away from him suddenly when the issues have been constant for fifty years or so is disingenuous. Or unaware and simplistic. Either way, it's a message board. People are tired of hearing their own party is moving away from those in the supposed "center" of things. That's why it becomes an issue.

Easy to see why, really. It paints one party as moving too far left and therefore abandoning its centered, moderate voters.

However, this voter is clearly a Republican in all but name. That's why people care.

I don't disagree with any of that. But it feels like some people regard him as a kind of political Trojan Horse, smuggling his conservative views under the cover of being a Democrat. And sure, if he were doing hits on Fox News where he claimed to be a Dem even as he constantly criticized them, I would have a problem with that (looking at you, Mark Penn). But on this board? Everyone knows who he is. Regardless of what he calls himself, I read his posts the same way I read any of the other conservatives here. Much in the same way all the conservatives don't care that Tim says he voted against Obama both times.

 

[Zegras11]

I really don't see why any of it affects any of us.

Because so many here can't exist without being on their team.

 

[rustycolts]

I don't know but @Snotbubbles sounds like a bluedog dem to me. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I really don't see why any of it affects any of us.

Because so many here can't exist without being on their team.

I'm reminded of that famous cartoon where the person says they can't come to bed because "Someone is wrong on the Internet."

But I'm actually being a bit uncharitable by saying I don't understand why people feel that way. I totally get why some might look at the dissonance between a person's positions and his party ID and see it as incoherent at best, disingenuous at worst. I just don't see it that way. I chalk it up instead to the unknowable complexity of human psychology.

By the way, SB, I started this tangent because I found it odd people were spending so much time in the thread trying to psychoanalyze you, and I realize now that my posts only serve to perpetuate the problem. I actually find the whole subject of political psychology to be really fascinating, but I also know that it would probably make me uncomfortable to have a bunch of strangers assessing my psyche. So I'll stop now.

 

[The General]

I don't agree with @Snotbubbles on much, but I don't understand why people in this thread keep playing gotcha with him. Yeah, it seems odd that he calls himself a Democrat while generally supporting Republican positions, but party identification can be a weird thing sometimes. For those of us who are highly engaged in politics and know exactly what we believe and which politicians support those beliefs, it seems hard to fathom. But I suspect there a lot of SBs out there whose views/ID aren't aligned in ways that we nerds think is "normal". I was listening to a podcast the other day where someone described a focus-group participant who had voted for Trump, was high on DeSantis in '24, but also expressed admiration for AOC.

In any event, who cares? Maybe SB is on a slow march away from the Dems, and in a few years will be a garden-variety conservative Republican. Maybe there's some reason he'll feel the need to maintain his connection to the Democratic Party, even if he never votes for them. I really don't see why any of it affects any of us.

It was noticeable that a poster felt obligated to say “I’m a registered democrat but…”

Snotbubbles is a fair and good poster so people will notice that and ask about it.

That’s all I took this as.

 

[FairWarning]

I don't agree with @Snotbubbles on much, but I don't understand why people in this thread keep playing gotcha with him. Yeah, it seems odd that he calls himself a Democrat while generally supporting Republican positions, but party identification can be a weird thing sometimes. For those of us who are highly engaged in politics and know exactly what we believe and which politicians support those beliefs, it seems hard to fathom. But I suspect there a lot of SBs out there whose views/ID aren't aligned in ways that we nerds think is "normal". I was listening to a podcast the other day where someone described a focus-group participant who had voted for Trump, was high on DeSantis in '24, but also expressed admiration for AOC.

In any event, who cares? Maybe SB is on a slow march away from the Dems, and in a few years will be a garden-variety conservative Republican. Maybe there's some reason he'll feel the need to maintain his connection to the Democratic Party, even if he never votes for them. I really don't see why any of it affects any of us.

People worry about it quite simply, because his being a "Democrat" who agrees with none of the platform while claiming the D party is moving away from him suddenly when the issues have been constant for fifty years or so is disingenuous. Or unaware and simplistic. Either way, it's a message board. People are tired of hearing their own party is moving away from those in the supposed "center" of things. That's why it becomes an issue.

Easy to see why, really. It paints one party as moving too far left and therefore abandoning its centered, moderate voters.

However, this voter is clearly a Republican in all but name. That's why people care.

I don't disagree with any of that. But it feels like some people regard him as a kind of political Trojan Horse, smuggling his conservative views under the cover of being a Democrat. And sure, if he were doing hits on Fox News where he claimed to be a Dem even as he constantly criticized them, I would have a problem with that (looking at you, Mark Penn). But on this board? Everyone knows who he is. Regardless of what he calls himself, I read his posts the same way I read any of the other conservatives here. Much in the same way all the conservatives don't care that Tim says he voted against Obama both times.

I guess it goes back to if you are a D, do you have to support their Entire platform? Of course not, and the same applies to the right. So we are back to what policies mean the most for a person to vote the way they do. I agree with you about election psychology, it would make for a interesting college class.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I don't agree with @Snotbubbles on much, but I don't understand why people in this thread keep playing gotcha with him. Yeah, it seems odd that he calls himself a Democrat while generally supporting Republican positions, but party identification can be a weird thing sometimes. For those of us who are highly engaged in politics and know exactly what we believe and which politicians support those beliefs, it seems hard to fathom. But I suspect there a lot of SBs out there whose views/ID aren't aligned in ways that we nerds think is "normal". I was listening to a podcast the other day where someone described a focus-group participant who had voted for Trump, was high on DeSantis in '24, but also expressed admiration for AOC.

In any event, who cares? Maybe SB is on a slow march away from the Dems, and in a few years will be a garden-variety conservative Republican. Maybe there's some reason he'll feel the need to maintain his connection to the Democratic Party, even if he never votes for them. I really don't see why any of it affects any of us.

People worry about it quite simply, because his being a "Democrat" who agrees with none of the platform while claiming the D party is moving away from him suddenly when the issues have been constant for fifty years or so is disingenuous. Or unaware and simplistic. Either way, it's a message board. People are tired of hearing their own party is moving away from those in the supposed "center" of things. That's why it becomes an issue.

Easy to see why, really. It paints one party as moving too far left and therefore abandoning its centered, moderate voters.

However, this voter is clearly a Republican in all but name. That's why people care.

I don't disagree with any of that. But it feels like some people regard him as a kind of political Trojan Horse, smuggling his conservative views under the cover of being a Democrat. And sure, if he were doing hits on Fox News where he claimed to be a Dem even as he constantly criticized them, I would have a problem with that (looking at you, Mark Penn). But on this board? Everyone knows who he is. Regardless of what he calls himself, I read his posts the same way I read any of the other conservatives here. Much in the same way all the conservatives don't care that Tim says he voted against Obama both times.

I guess it goes back to if you are a D, do you have to support their Entire platform? Of course not, and the same applies to the right. So we are back to what policies mean the most for a person to vote the way they do. I agree with you about election psychology, it would make for a interesting college class.

No, you don't have to support the entire platform. Not that I care one way or the other with snot, but IMO each party have some core tenets that I would also raise a eyebrow slightly if somebody said they were largely against but still said they were for that party (to be fair, I believe snot also said he was a "registered" Democrat, which is an important distinction).

e.g.- if you said you were a Republican, but agreed with Tim about immigration, was pro-choice, for strict gun control, and for defunding the police, you might field similar questions about if you are sure you are R still. You could very well agree with them on many other issues, but there are ones that seem to core to each party as well.

 

[rockaction]

You want e.g., GB, not i.e.

e.g. stands for exempli gratia, meaning "for example"
i.e. stands for id est, or "that is"

That's not to single you out. That's for everybody. One to grow on. And I had to look up the Latin translations, so I'm not a pedant (really!).

The Difference Between 'i.e.' and 'e.g.'

For example, the different ways to use them in a sentence

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[FairWarning]

I don't agree with @Snotbubbles on much, but I don't understand why people in this thread keep playing gotcha with him. Yeah, it seems odd that he calls himself a Democrat while generally supporting Republican positions, but party identification can be a weird thing sometimes. For those of us who are highly engaged in politics and know exactly what we believe and which politicians support those beliefs, it seems hard to fathom. But I suspect there a lot of SBs out there whose views/ID aren't aligned in ways that we nerds think is "normal". I was listening to a podcast the other day where someone described a focus-group participant who had voted for Trump, was high on DeSantis in '24, but also expressed admiration for AOC.

In any event, who cares? Maybe SB is on a slow march away from the Dems, and in a few years will be a garden-variety conservative Republican. Maybe there's some reason he'll feel the need to maintain his connection to the Democratic Party, even if he never votes for them. I really don't see why any of it affects any of us.

People worry about it quite simply, because his being a "Democrat" who agrees with none of the platform while claiming the D party is moving away from him suddenly when the issues have been constant for fifty years or so is disingenuous. Or unaware and simplistic. Either way, it's a message board. People are tired of hearing their own party is moving away from those in the supposed "center" of things. That's why it becomes an issue.

Easy to see why, really. It paints one party as moving too far left and therefore abandoning its centered, moderate voters.

However, this voter is clearly a Republican in all but name. That's why people care.

I don't disagree with any of that. But it feels like some people regard him as a kind of political Trojan Horse, smuggling his conservative views under the cover of being a Democrat. And sure, if he were doing hits on Fox News where he claimed to be a Dem even as he constantly criticized them, I would have a problem with that (looking at you, Mark Penn). But on this board? Everyone knows who he is. Regardless of what he calls himself, I read his posts the same way I read any of the other conservatives here. Much in the same way all the conservatives don't care that Tim says he voted against Obama both times.

I guess it goes back to if you are a D, do you have to support their Entire platform? Of course not, and the same applies to the right. So we are back to what policies mean the most for a person to vote the way they do. I agree with you about election psychology, it would make for a interesting college class.

No, you don't have to support the entire platform. Not that I care one way or the other with snot, but IMO each party have some core tenets that I would also raise a eyebrow slightly if somebody said they were largely against but still said they were for that party (to be fair, I believe snot also said he was a "registered" Democrat, which is an important distinction).

Ie if you said you were a Republican, but agreed with Tim about immigration, was pro-choice, for strict gun control, and for defunding the police, you might field similar questions about if you are sure you are R still. You could very well agree with them on many other issues, but there are ones that seem to core to each party as well.

I do know a fair amount of registered Rs in Mich that are 100% D. Why? Because they declared R to vote Trump over Kasich in the primary a few years ago to make it easier for Hillary, then never switched back to D.

I do think overall the board is fiscally conservative and socially liberal for the most part

 

[KarmaPolice]

I don't agree with @Snotbubbles on much, but I don't understand why people in this thread keep playing gotcha with him. Yeah, it seems odd that he calls himself a Democrat while generally supporting Republican positions, but party identification can be a weird thing sometimes. For those of us who are highly engaged in politics and know exactly what we believe and which politicians support those beliefs, it seems hard to fathom. But I suspect there a lot of SBs out there whose views/ID aren't aligned in ways that we nerds think is "normal". I was listening to a podcast the other day where someone described a focus-group participant who had voted for Trump, was high on DeSantis in '24, but also expressed admiration for AOC.

In any event, who cares? Maybe SB is on a slow march away from the Dems, and in a few years will be a garden-variety conservative Republican. Maybe there's some reason he'll feel the need to maintain his connection to the Democratic Party, even if he never votes for them. I really don't see why any of it affects any of us.

People worry about it quite simply, because his being a "Democrat" who agrees with none of the platform while claiming the D party is moving away from him suddenly when the issues have been constant for fifty years or so is disingenuous. Or unaware and simplistic. Either way, it's a message board. People are tired of hearing their own party is moving away from those in the supposed "center" of things. That's why it becomes an issue.

Easy to see why, really. It paints one party as moving too far left and therefore abandoning its centered, moderate voters.

However, this voter is clearly a Republican in all but name. That's why people care.

I don't disagree with any of that. But it feels like some people regard him as a kind of political Trojan Horse, smuggling his conservative views under the cover of being a Democrat. And sure, if he were doing hits on Fox News where he claimed to be a Dem even as he constantly criticized them, I would have a problem with that (looking at you, Mark Penn). But on this board? Everyone knows who he is. Regardless of what he calls himself, I read his posts the same way I read any of the other conservatives here. Much in the same way all the conservatives don't care that Tim says he voted against Obama both times.

I guess it goes back to if you are a D, do you have to support their Entire platform? Of course not, and the same applies to the right. So we are back to what policies mean the most for a person to vote the way they do. I agree with you about election psychology, it would make for a interesting college class.

No, you don't have to support the entire platform. Not that I care one way or the other with snot, but IMO each party have some core tenets that I would also raise a eyebrow slightly if somebody said they were largely against but still said they were for that party (to be fair, I believe snot also said he was a "registered" Democrat, which is an important distinction).

Ie if you said you were a Republican, but agreed with Tim about immigration, was pro-choice, for strict gun control, and for defunding the police, you might field similar questions about if you are sure you are R still. You could very well agree with them on many other issues, but there are ones that seem to core to each party as well.

I do know a fair amount of registered Rs in Mich that are 100% D. Why? Because they declared R to vote Trump over Kasich in the primary a few years ago to make it easier for Hillary, then never switched back to D.

I do think overall the board is fiscally conservative and socially liberal for the most part

That makes sense too. I just thought it was funny that snot wasn't answering the question directly. There could be dozens of reasons why it's the case though (both why he wasn't answering and is a registered D)
.
I do think most on the board would say they are those two things, but I am not sure the posts really reflect it- mostly the fiscal conservative part.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I don't agree with @Snotbubbles on much, but I don't understand why people in this thread keep playing gotcha with him. Yeah, it seems odd that he calls himself a Democrat while generally supporting Republican positions, but party identification can be a weird thing sometimes. For those of us who are highly engaged in politics and know exactly what we believe and which politicians support those beliefs, it seems hard to fathom. But I suspect there a lot of SBs out there whose views/ID aren't aligned in ways that we nerds think is "normal". I was listening to a podcast the other day where someone described a focus-group participant who had voted for Trump, was high on DeSantis in '24, but also expressed admiration for AOC.

In any event, who cares? Maybe SB is on a slow march away from the Dems, and in a few years will be a garden-variety conservative Republican. Maybe there's some reason he'll feel the need to maintain his connection to the Democratic Party, even if he never votes for them. I really don't see why any of it affects any of us.

Agreed. The trying to play gotcha and refusing to take people at their word thing is discouraging. It is what it is though for some and I've given up hope it'll change.

 

[the moops]

Agreed. The trying to play gotcha and refusing to take people at their word thing is discouraging. It is what it is though for some and I've given up hope it'll change.

I am taking Snot at his word that he is in fact a registered democrat. I am questioning why he is, considering his stance on core issues.

 

[Da Guru]

I don't agree with @Snotbubbles on much, but I don't understand why people in this thread keep playing gotcha with him. Yeah, it seems odd that he calls himself a Democrat while generally supporting Republican positions, but party identification can be a weird thing sometimes. For those of us who are highly engaged in politics and know exactly what we believe and which politicians support those beliefs, it seems hard to fathom. But I suspect there a lot of SBs out there whose views/ID aren't aligned in ways that we nerds think is "normal". I was listening to a podcast the other day where someone described a focus-group participant who had voted for Trump, was high on DeSantis in '24, but also expressed admiration for AOC.

In any event, who cares? Maybe SB is on a slow march away from the Dems, and in a few years will be a garden-variety conservative Republican. Maybe there's some reason he'll feel the need to maintain his connection to the Democratic Party, even if he never votes for them. I really don't see why any of it affects any of us.

People worry about it quite simply, because his being a "Democrat" who agrees with none of the platform while claiming the D party is moving away from him suddenly when the issues have been constant for fifty years or so is disingenuous. Or unaware and simplistic. Either way, it's a message board. People are tired of hearing their own party is moving away from those in the supposed "center" of things. That's why it becomes an issue.

Easy to see why, really. It paints one party as moving too far left and therefore abandoning its centered, moderate voters.

However, this voter is clearly a Republican in all but name. That's why people care.

I don't disagree with any of that. But it feels like some people regard him as a kind of political Trojan Horse, smuggling his conservative views under the cover of being a Democrat. And sure, if he were doing hits on Fox News where he claimed to be a Dem even as he constantly criticized them, I would have a problem with that (looking at you, Mark Penn). But on this board? Everyone knows who he is. Regardless of what he calls himself, I read his posts the same way I read any of the other conservatives here. Much in the same way all the conservatives don't care that Tim says he voted against Obama both times.

Tired of having to claim if you are Red or Blue.

There are issues on both sides I agree with, there are issues on both sides I disagree with, I vote accordingly and have voted for candidates on both sides.

I am for women rights to choose, I am for stronger borders, I am for improving health care for all, I am against taxpayer funded college debt payoffs, I am for the US drilling for more oil to become less dependent on other countries, I am also for EVs and other renewable sources to continue to develop. I am for improving public education. The list goes on.

Where does that leave me? Without a party for sure.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Tired of having to claim if you are Red or Blue.

Agreed. And tired of us mocking each other and effectively calling each other liars or bad faith actors that they're not "democrat" enough or "conservative" enough. It's exhausting. And I don't see it changing.

 

[roadkill1292]

Tired of having to claim if you are Red or Blue.

Agreed. And tired of us mocking each other and effectively calling each other liars or bad faith actors that they're not "democrat" enough or "conservative" enough. It's exhausting. And I don't see it changing.

Join the election reform movement.