Sinema Leaves Democratic Party

[xtsho]

remarkably few people are sick of both sides. It is, however, a popular theme with paid trolls who hacked long-dormant accounts.

There are more people that identify as Independent than either Democrat or Republican. It's been that way for years. And yes people are sick of both sides. The only people that don't understand that are those that are stuck on one side in an echo chamber so they think everyone is the same as they are. Politics have become extreme on both sides.

 

[cannabineer]

There are more people that identify as Independent than either Democrat or Republican. It's been that way for years. And yes people are sick of both sides. The only people that don't understand that are those that are stuck on one side in an echo chamber so they think everyone is the same as they are. Politics have become extreme on both sides.

No.

Show me one (1):

insurrectionist
racist
dominionist

in the Democrats.

 

[michojay]

No.

Shit well I guess I’ll have to tell pretty much everyone I know that they don’t actually feel that way. Except you of course. You are way ahead of the game. Thanks for setting me straight. Now I can go back about my day and out of this political portion of a cannabis forum that I would rather never come back to. Thank you.

 

[cannabineer]

Shit well I guess I’ll have to tell pretty much everyone I know that they don’t actually feel that way. Except you of course. You are way ahead of the game. Thanks for setting me straight. Now I can go back about my day and out of this political portion of a cannabis forum that I would rather never come back to. Thank you.

Have a nice day.
(Note edit.)

 

[tangerinegreen555]

Sinema thinks of Simema first and second, not too worried about anything else.

And she was going to face a stiff primary soon. So she's going to get on the ballot as an incumbent (I) and try to hold on to her power.

Arizona will let her know how much they like that in a couple years. She probably shouldn't make plans too far ahead.

 

[xtsho]

Probably a good political decision. She's up for reelection in 2024. Despite the Democrats doing really good in 2022 much of which was due to the awful candidates the GOP had, Arizona is not a bastion of liberals and could flip the other way in an instant. She's now positioning herself to win in 2024. There are more independent voters than registered Democrats.

Party Name	Registered Voters	Percent
Republican	1,436,852	34.67%
Democratic	1,270,544	30.66%
Other	1,404,385	33.89%
Libertarian	32,148	0.78%
Total	4,143,929

 

[Hotrod2]

Elected officials should only answer to their constituents. Her change is leaving the Democratic Party maybe base completely on feedback from her constituents.

If her constituents do not agree with what she does she will be voted out next term just like Cheney was.

 

[xtsho]

Sinema thinks of Simema first and second, not too worried about anything else.

And she was going to face a stiff primary soon. So she's going to get on the ballot as an incumbent (I) and try to hold on to her power.

Arizona will let her know how much they like that in a couple years. She probably shouldn't make plans too far ahead.

She was definitely going to be primaried and she would have lost and then the Democrats would lose that seat. She has the best chance of holding that seat in Arizona. Do the Democrats want it going to a Republican or someone that votes with them 90% of the time?

 

[schuylaar]

POLITICO Playbook: Breaking: Sinema leaves the Democratic Party

And seven members of the House Freedom Caucus circulated a “Dear Colleague” letter dictating their requirements for any candidate for speaker.

www.politico.com

• One difference between her and the other independents: “Unlike independent Sens. BERNIE SANDERS (Vt.) and ANGUS KING (Maine), Sinema won’t attend weekly Democratic Caucus meetings, but she rarely does that now. She isn’t sure whether her desk will remain on the Democratic side of the Senate floor.”
• What she’s doing this morning: “[Sinema said] she’ll go for a ‘hard run’ after her announcement becomes public, ‘because that’s mostly what I do Friday mornings.’”

IS THIS WHY SHE’S LEAVING? — Before the explosive news, a person familiar told Holly Otterbein that Rep. RUBEN GALLEGO (D-Ariz.) had taken a concrete step toward a primary challenge against Sinema: He is interviewing paid media firms for 2024.

Gallego, who did not return a message seeking comment,has been fiercely critical of Sinema’s policy positions, which narrowed President JOE BIDEN’s legislative agenda, and he has more recently accused her of failing to support her party in the midterms. In a post-election MSNBC interview, Gallego said Sinema was “nowhere to be found” as Democrats rallied around Sen. MARK KELLY and Gov.-elect KATIE HOBBS.

 

[PJ Diaz]

She was definitely going to be primaried and she would have lost and then the Democrats would lose that seat. She has the best chance of holding that seat in Arizona. Do the Democrats want it going to a Republican or someone that votes with them 90% of the time?

Both parties have a gang-like mentality these days. If you're not with them, you must be against them. It's like they have blinders on.

 

[xtsho]

POLITICO Playbook: Breaking: Sinema leaves the Democratic Party

And seven members of the House Freedom Caucus circulated a “Dear Colleague” letter dictating their requirements for any candidate for speaker.

www.politico.com

You can breathe a sigh of relief

“In a 45-minute interview, the first-term senator told POLITICO that she will not caucus with Republicans and suggested that she intends to vote the same way she has for four years in the Senate. ‘Nothing will change about my values or my behavior,’ she said.

 

[cannabineer]

Both parties have a gang-like mentality these days. If you're not with them, you must be against them. It's like they have blinders on.

I would be interested in your response to #22.

 

[PJ Diaz]

I would be interested in your response to #22.

It seems to be a topically irrelevant question to me, which is why I didn't address it. That said, I could play a similar game with Democrats, however the fact that some members of a party have specific negative aspects associated with their personal/political positions, does not automatically extend those same positions to all other members of said party.

 

[xtsho]

Both parties have a gang-like mentality these days. If you're not with them, you must be against them. It's like they have blinders on.

It's ridiculous. Both sides do it. Look at how primarying candidates that could win worked out for the GOP this last election. They went too extreme and lost elections they could have easily won.

Here in Oregon we had a Democrat House member get primaried by someone on the far left. He lost the primary and the Democrats lost a House seat Kurt Schrader had held since 2008. The extremes are stuck in their echo chambers and there doesn't seem to be any way to get them to come out. Both the Democratic and Republican parties are shrinking and neither one seems to be able to acknowledge that much of the electorate refuses to identify with either party.

 

[schuylaar]

You can breathe a sigh of relief

“In a 45-minute interview, the first-term senator told POLITICO that she will not caucus with Republicans and suggested that she intends to vote the same way she has for four years in the Senate. ‘Nothing will change about my values or my behavior,’ she said.

'And yet she's undecided where her desk will be'.

POLITICO Playbook: Breaking: Sinema leaves the Democratic Party

And seven members of the House Freedom Caucus circulated a “Dear Colleague” letter dictating their requirements for any candidate for speaker.

www.politico.com

 

[tangerinegreen555]

There are more people that identify as Independent than either Democrat or Republican. It's been that way for years. And yes people are sick of both sides. The only people that don't understand that are those that are stuck on one side in an echo chamber so they think everyone is the same as they are. Politics have become extreme on both sides.

But was politics extreme on both sides before the rise of right wing radio circa 1980? And before Rupert Murdoch around the same time? And the Federalist Society?

Through the '70s you had 3 TV networks that gave the same basic objective news every single day.

Walter Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley, etc.

One side decided that objective news wasn't working out well enough. Now objective news hammered the Southern Democrat racist governors by showing black people attacked by cops, dogs and fire hoses through the early 1960s. Objective news showed LBJs flag draped coffins returning from Vietnam daily. Was that OK? To show what was happening in the country and world?

Then came Watergate and suddenly it was the other party getting the attention of the objective media. They didn't like it one bit. So they slowly changed that shit.

Right wing grevience radio started blaring. Flag draped coffins were suddenly off limits to photographers and reporters. Bad optics for endless wars and all.

This was a long range plan coming to fruition, just add the internet age and social media with feces on the walls and what have you got exactly?

The modern political era where lies are not only OK but totally believed. The Dumbing Down of America Plan. They may not have called it that but it's what you have now.

Q Anon, Pizzagate, daily mass shootings, shooting of power stations, armed militias, etc.

The once revered truth in journalism replaced by narratives and you don't have to be Einstein to see who benefits.

If 60-70% of the people support freedom of abortion choice, legal or at least decriminalized weed, labor unions and a long list of other things, how does the minority keep the majority down?

If the majority approve of Social Security and Medicare, why are they always under pressure? All they have to do is raise the wage cap up to around $10 million and there would be a massive excess in that fund. Do you think the super rich would miss the money? Especially now that the top tax rate is a fraction of what it was in 1960?

Manipulation of media narratives and a whole lot of stupid people equals today's politics. One side thrives on it. Guess which one.

 

[tangerinegreen555]

She was definitely going to be primaried and she would have lost and then the Democrats would lose that seat. She has the best chance of holding that seat in Arizona. Do the Democrats want it going to a Republican or someone that votes with them 90% of the time?

Or it will be a 3 way that 35% takes the seat. You can't see the future any better than I at the moment.

 

[xtsho]

But was politics extreme on both sides before the rise of right wing radio circa 1980? And before Rupert Murdoch around the same time? And the Federalist Society?

Through the '70s you had 3 TV networks that gave the same basic objective news every single day.

Walter Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley, etc.

One side decided that objective news wasn't working out well enough. Now objective news hammered the Southern Democrat racist governors by showing black people attacked by cops, dogs and fire hoses through the early 1960s. Objective news showed LBJs flag draped coffins returning from Vietnam daily. Was that OK? To show what was happening in the country and world?

Then came Watergate and suddenly it was the other party getting the attention of the objective media. They didn't like it one bit. So they slowly changed that shit.

Right wing grevience radio started blaring. Flag draped coffins were suddenly off limits to photographers and reporters. Bad optics for endless wars and all.

This was a long range plan coming to fruition, just add the internet age and social media with feces on the walls and what have you got exactly?

The modern political era where lies are not only OK but totally believed. The Dumbing Down of America Plan. They may not have called it that but it's what you have now.

Q Anon, Pizzagate, daily mass shootings, shooting of power stations, armed militias, etc.

The once revered truth in journalism replaced by narratives and you don't have to be Einstein to see who benefits.

If 60-70% of the people support freedom of abortion choice, legal or at least decriminalized weed, labor unions and a long list of other things, how does the minority keep the majority down?

If the majority approve of Social Security and Medicare, why are they always under pressure? All they have to do is raise the wage cap up to around $10 million and there would be a massive excess in that fund. Do you think the super rich would miss the money? Especially now that the top tax rate is a fraction of what it was in 1960?

Manipulation of media narratives and a whole lot of stupid people equals today's politics. One side thrives on it. Guess which one.

Most people don't care for the "They do it more" argument. It's old and tired. The far left thinks that because the far right might be more extreme that people are going to just choose the lesser of two extremes. Reality is that people reject both extremes and are not interested in level of extremism. We're sick of it all. Both the D's and the R's suck. Independent voters can find things they like and dislike in both parties. It's not one or the other.

 

[PJ Diaz]

But was politics extreme on both sides before the rise of right wing radio circa 1980? And before Rupert Murdoch around the same time? And the Federalist Society?

Yes.

The Little-Known Story of 19th-Century America's Partisan Warfare

In a new book, Smithsonian curator Jon Grinspan examines the history of America's furious and fractious politics

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[cannabineer]

It seems to be a topically irrelevant question to me, which is why I didn't address it. That said, I could play a similar game with Democrats, however the fact that some members of a party have specific negative aspects associated with their personal/political positions, does not automatically extend those same positions to all other members of said party.

seriously, if you can lay extremism at the feet of any Democrat legislator, now’s the time.