Election 2020

Bridget Phetasy Is Politically Homeless. You Probably Are Too.

Bridget Phetasy on why Trump and Biden fail to inspire and how new media are reshaping politics.

|

HD Download

"This is the best we've got?" asks podcaster and columnist Bridget Phetasy of Donald Trump and Joe Biden. "Do I poke out my left eye? Or my right eye?" 

It's no wonder to her that neither Biden nor Trump can crack 50 percent in approval ratings. They are, she says, cringe-inducing to everyone but hard-core partisans, and they're the main reasons she won't be voting for president in the 2020 election.

Phetasy is politically homeless, the most common reality in a country in which a 41-percent plurality call themselves independent, just 31 percent identify as Democrats, and only 26 percent cop to being Republicans.

The major parties are selling Americans on policy bundles that utterly inane. If you want tax cuts, you have to vote for pro-life candidates, for billions more in military spending, and against immigration. If you want to vote in favor of immigration, you have to also sign on to a $2 trillion Green New Deal, trapping children in failing district schools, and massive tax hikes.

Phetasy calls herself a "purple person" who is conservative red on some issues and liberal blue on others, and she's tired of a "toxic binary" that squelches debate within parties. Until the Republicans and Democrats start appealing to voters like her, they will have to eke out tighter and tighter victories by scaring partisans with insane claims. Despite that, Phetasy is optimistic because she thinks new media are staging a conversation that speaks to politically homeless independents.

Edited by John Osterhoudt.

Photos: Michael Candelori from Philadelphia/CC BY (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0);  Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America/CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0); Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America/CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0); Phil Roeder/Flickr; Alek S./Flickr; Polaris/Newscom; Victoria Pickering/Flickr; Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America/CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0); LEAH MILLIS/REUTERS/Newscom; Renee Jones Schneider/TNS/Newscom; Ron Sachs/Pool via CNP / SplashNews/Newscom; Albin Lohr-Jones/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Watchara Phomicinda/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Adam Schultz/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Bob Karp/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Michael Forster Rothbart/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Rod Lamkey/ZUMA Press/Newscom

NEXT: Let Volunteers Expose Themselves to COVID-19 To Speed Up a Vaccine

HD Download

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “why Trump and Biden fail to inspire”

    Yes, one side of the aisle makes Arkham asylum look like a preschool but does the other side INSPIRE me??? Sigh.

    1. One side makes Arkham look like a preschool, but should they win because because the other side makes it look like a nursery?

      1. US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started……….HERE? Read More

      2. All right who set Zeb off again?

        1. I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $95 however I see the way it works now.OPT I experience masses frenedom now that i’m my non-public boss. that is what I do……

          =================► CashApp

    2. Pretending to be neutral is the height of edginess these days. Nothing is perfect, let them talk about it!! The new edgy.

      1. Not everyone is neutral. Some people might actually have a hard time picking between the parties. If, for example, the two issues you care about most are abortion rights and gun rights. That’s not exactly neutral, but it does pose a dilemma. Just because the choice is obvious to you doesn’t mean it is to everyone.
        I don’t see how it’s edgy either. It’s a pretty common place to be these days.

        1. “…the two issues you care about most are abortion rights and gun rights…”

          Then you should definitely vote Republican. They have been unsuccessful in enacting real abortion restrictions and are gradually becoming more pro-choice. Democrats on the other hand are becoming even less respectful of the 2nd amendment and are climbing to a critical mass to restrict speech to pre-approved narratives. Or perhaps you haven’t noticed cancel culture or who is behind it.

          1. Republicans are becoming more pro-choice?

            1. Yes,once they were full on let’s overturn Roe, most now would settle just for banning abortion past a certain point, usually sometime in the second trimester.

            2. I would not say they’re becoming more pro-choice, but the stance seems to be moderating somewhat. I hear less of the “no exceptions” rhetoric these days. Opposition to those wanting to use it as another form of birth control is still pretty strong though.

      2. Not neutral, but rejecting different flavors of statist politics. Too bad we don’t have a philosophy of less government.

        1. “Too bad we don’t have a philosophy of less government.”

          Some people do have such a philosophy.

          However, getting people who really believe in less government to run for political office is not easy. The people who really believe in less government don’t particularly want to be in charge of the government.

          1. It is a tall hurdle trying to win an election as a limited government candidate when both major parties are built around the expansion of government. They only differ in what areas of the government they wish to expand and how quickly.

            1. “It is a tall hurdle trying to win an election as a limited government candidate when both major parties are built around the expansion of government. ”

              You missed my point. As hard as it is to win an election as a limited government candidate, it’s an order of magnitude harder to actually find a true supporter of limited government willing to run for office.

    3. Trump is so uninspiring that people have boat parades across the country for other reasons

      1. +100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

      2. MAFA….Make America Float Again

        1. Here I was thinking it was Make America Fucking Awesome. 🙂

    4. unreason is doing what propagandists do. They print lies to further their agenda. unreason is acting like Democrats and republicans are the same.

      -The Democrat Party is the party of slavery.
      -The Democrat Party is funding and encouraging rioting and bombing, and violence toward dissenters
      -The Democrat Party is Socialism in the USA.
      -The Democrat party tried to nuke the US economy by blowing the Kungflu out of proportion.

      1. Yeah, but Orange Man Bad.

        1. Yes, the Orange Man is bad, but the Pale, Old, Senile Man is worse.

    5. Bill Maher was right when he said all the Dems need to do to win POTUS is to be less crazy than Trump. Trump denies scientific evidence of climate change, insults veteran heroes, tells people to drink bleach to cure COVID and makes up “facts” constantly. The Democrats want to release everyone from prison, burn police stations, undo all college debt, forbid people from getting private health insurance or private school, and have 50%+ tax rates. I’m voting for Trump – he’s less crazy than the Democrats.

      1. …..not sure how solving the college debt issue fits in with your other positions…

  2. But remember! If you don’t vote, or you vote 3rd party, you’re helping to elect Trump! …or Biden!…or both simultaneously! I can never keep track.

    1. A third party vote or non-vote can be thought of a both a vote for Trump or a vote for Biden. We won’t know until after the election when the losing side starts making excuses. You could call it “Schrodinger’s vote.”

      1. What if you’re observing the vote but it isn’t actualizing?
        The media observes a different result than the ballot counters, with both observations existing in superposition?

        Maybe it’s time for new physics for November 2020.

    2. If you don’t decline to vote or vote third party, you are definitely helping Biden or Trump get elected.

    3. That’s the problem, there’s nothing I can do so both Trump and Biden lose. That would be the ideal outcome, but the system has been rigged to make it impossible.

    4. I had friends that tried to use that logic after the 2016 election. Trump won Missouri by almost 20 percentage points. The third party candidates combined pulled something like 6% total.

  3. She is in the home and cannot leave.
    So her choice not to vote leaves her at the mercy of others.
    If nothing else she should look at the judges appointed by the Biden administration and by the trump administration, and become a one issue voter.
    Also, just as a reminder, if you don’t vote, you have no basis to complain about the results.

    (I am reminded of the after the election bumper sticker “Don’t blame me, I voted for Gore. I think.”)

    1. ” if you don’t vote, you have no basis to complain about the results.”
      In many countries, even today, 90+% vote and still aren’t permitted to complain about the results. When my one vote actually means the representative chosen will do as I would, then I’ll agree I would have no basis for complaint if I didn’t vote.

    2. Your choice to vote still leaves you at the mercy of others. And if you do vote, you have endorsed the system and its results through your participation and have no basis to complain about the results.

      1. “I won’t vote until I get everything I want wahhhhhh!!!”

        1. Nope, you missed that point completely. Sorry, try again.

          1. Ok

            ““I won’t vote until I get everything I want and I know I’m stupid for it wahhhhhh!!!”

            1. You’re an idiot. I never said anything about what I do or prefer. Try addressing what I actually said if you disagree with it, rather than attacking your own (wrong) ideas about my motivations.

              1. “I won’t vote until I get everything I want and I know I’m stupid for it and you better stop or I’ll whine at you harder wahhhhhh!!!”

                1. So, I can only conclude that you don’t disagree with me since you completely failed to address what I said.
                  Also, I do vote. I just don’t delude myself into thinking it makes any fucking difference. I have no expectation that voting or not voting will get me anything I want and my choice of when to vote and who to vote for has nothing to do with my “getting what I want”. I know it’s hard for some to believe, but there are other motivations besides immediate personal gratification.

    3. Of course I have a basis to complain about the results, whether I vote or not. I am being subjected to the will of the plurality and denied my basic human rights to live my own life free of coercion and appropriation of my wealth.

      I should be free to join a government of my choosing, or none at all, not subjected to the government of the physical geography I am in, with leaders chosen by others.

    4. On the contrary. If you DO vote, you don’t get to complain about the results. By voting, you incontrovertibly accept the whole democratic bargain that it is right and just and legitimate that whichever schmuck the process produces gets to govern.

      It’s only the principled non-voters who didn’t accept that particular notion that have standing to complain about the outcome.

  4. Bridget Phetasy — a columnist for the Spectator and the Federalist — is presented as a stateless moderate?

    1. What do you call Bill Kristol and Max Boot, then (besides pretentious poseurs)?

      1. the guy in the corner watching

  5. I seriously have to question the intelligence of anyone who reflexively criticizes Trump’s Style, and pretending it is anywhere near as problematic as the Substance of the Democrat Party

    1. These people believe both silence and words are violence.

      1. Forcing your opinions on me is mental rape

      2. Oh, BS. Some people like the president to behave in conventional ways and be statesman-like. I don’t give a shit myself as I despise all politicians, but I don’t think those people are being dishonest. Trump is a strange and very rude man. Lots of people just don’t like that.

        1. LBJ won in a landslide.

          1. O.G. Dick-In-A-Box

        2. Trump is the worst human to ever hold the office of President. He is rude, thoughtless, stupid, moody and selfish. That being said…the things actually done during his presidency are fairly tame. The last 4 years have been decent in some areas and problematic in others…there have been far worse presidencies, but none so embarrassing.

          1. Can you show us on the doll where Trump touched you?

          2. In other words, he’s just like most people you’ll encounter on any libertarian website, but you would prefer that he be polite, polished, and fake.

            I’ll just take the great policy. I don’t care if he offends the pearl-clutchers.

    2. I question the education of anyone who exhibits the capitalization skills of a fourth-grader.

      1. Hey! i (ofttimes) resemble that remark!
        Its laziness.. not bad capitalization
        … and dont even mention my punctuation

      2. It took you until the 5th grade to learn to capitalize letters?

        Explains a lot.

  6. Is it common for libertarians to be socially liberal and economically conservative?

    How does science and NAP apply to being socially liberal?

    1. Libertarians tend to be against womb police and the state telling you which intoxicants you are allowed to privately indulge in. This is what counts as “social liberalism” because conservatives have walled up their ideological fort to make womb police and drug wars mandatory.

      Also, economic conservatism is a hoot. No one is economically conservatives. Especially not “conservatives”.

      1. According to nature/science there is a separate human entity in the womb. How does NAP deal with the other human entity?

        1. D&Cs are violence.

        2. Abortion is not an issue that is easy to deal with from a libertarian perspective. You have two competing sets of rights and different people reach different conclusions.
          Nature and science can’t answer moral questions like that.

          1. they could say “better off everyone lives”

            1. Nature and science don’t tell you what’s better or worse.

              1. nature and science would not be without life

                1. Science can study preferences. That doesn’t tell you which preferences are the morally correct ones. Science is about what is. Morality/ethics is about what ought to be.

                  1. science don’t tell you what’s better or worse.

                    Science can study preferences

                    Better or worse is a preference.

                    That doesn’t tell you which preferences are the morally

                    Morality is also a preference.

                  2. Science is about what is.

                    No it isn’t.

                    Morality/ethics is about what ought to be.

                    Which is….a preference.

                    1. So what are you saying? Science can tell us what is morally correct? That’s just silly. You can study how people behave and what preferences they display, but none of that will tell you which is morally correct. Unless you think morality is just a popularity contest.

                      I don’t know why it’s so hard for some people to accept that you just aren’t going to settle certain questions based purely on fact and reason.

            2. Yes, but are you willing to enforce that law by doing violence to the mother?

              It depends?

          2. Abortion is very easy to deal with…one just has to define when life starts and then the problem is solved…..oh, wait…I see.

        3. According to nature/science there is a separate human entity in the womb.

          No – that’s according to philosophy/theology, not nature/science. “Nature” is not aware of and doesn’t care about “separate,” “human,” or “womb.” Probably not even “entity.”

          1. Nature pretty much invented “human” and “womb”.

            In this context “separate” and “entity” are subject to haggling over definitions.

    2. Depends on what you mean by “socially liberal”. If that just means being tolerant and getting rid of laws against victimless crimes, it’s pretty obvious. If it means legislating on “social justice” issues, then there’s a bit of a problem.

    3. Well, there’s liberal and then there’s Liberal (and don’t get me started about LIBERAL).

  7. I just don’t understand that old saw that “most people are socially liberal and fiscally conservative.”

    From what I can tell, most people are “make people do what I want socially, and provide me as much shit as possible without my paying for it… fiscally.”

    1. Smashing open store windows and helping yourself to the goods inside without paying = socially liberal and fiscally conservative

      1. Libertarian Moment!

    2. The majority of Americans are pro-life, religious, pro-marijuana legalization and pro-don’t touch my Social Security or Medicare, but stop giving so much money to deadbeats.

      Of course, those majorities don’t necessarily intersect.

      1. “The Census report, like most such surveys, had cost an awful lot of money and didn’t tell anybody anything they didn’t already know – except that every single person in the Galaxy had 2.4 legs and owned a hyena.”

    3. Most people say they are socially liberal and fiscally conservative because they want to pay less tax and want to be left alone in the things that they like to do.

      1. I like your optimism, but I really don’t think that’s how most people see it. From what I can tell, people want explicit government approval for the things that they like to do.

        1. That’s sort of what I mean. I don’t think most people distinguish very well between being permitted to do something and not being forbidden.

          1. Yeah, I agree with that.

            That gets back to my original (implied) point. Most people don’t even entertain the idea of less/limited government control. Sadly, I don’t think that libertarian tendencies are at all pervasive in the general population.

    4. Imagine how fiscally responsible it would be to stop giving other people free shit, and just give me mine.

  8. Despite that, Phetasy is optimistic because she thinks new media are staging a conversation that speaks to politically homeless independents.
    Wishful thinking is fun.

  9. People who won’t vote for my candidate are the root of the problem! Government must do something!

  10. US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started……….HERE? Read More

  11. >>new media are staging a conversation that speaks to politically homeless independents

    self-nicknamed group to the rescue!

    also wtf is staging a conversation? just converse.

    1. By ‘new media’ they mean literally nothing changed except you haven’t seen this specific talking head before, probably.

      1. Kennedy was new media in 1992.

      2. I thought it meant Twitter and social media stuff.

        1. So, Twitter wasn’t part of the conversation in 2016 or it was and Phetasy is hopelessly confused and out of touch?

          1. No, but it was fairly new in 2016. And its place in the political discourse has been growing.

            1. No, but it was fairly new in 2016.

              Apparently I’m the only one who remembers how Ron Paul made a serious campaign run with Twitter. Then how, an election later, the Dems were patting themselves on the back for their intelligent use of Twitter/social media. Then how absolutely critical Twitter and Facebook said they were in speaking truth to power during the Arab Spring in 2011.

              But I’m sure this time “new” media will make a lasting change. Any time now…

          2. She may also be confused and out of touch. I know I am.

  12. “The major parties are selling Americans on policy bundles that utterly inane. If you want tax cuts, you have to vote for pro-life candidates, for billions more in military spending, and against immigration. If you want to vote in favor of immigration, you have to also sign on to a $2 trillion Green New Deal, trapping children in failing district schools, and massive tax hikes.”

    There this thing called Duverger’s law.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

    People who ignore it aren’t iconoclasts or optimists. They’re ignorant or naive.

    1. P.S. The path to influence isn’t elections every four years. It’s persuasion. First you persuade voters, then the politicians change.

      The guy who said, “Segregation today. Segregation tomorrow. Segregation forever!” changed his mind a few years later and became pro-integration–once the wind changed direction. The change wasn’t because of elections. The voters changed their minds.

      1. Horse
      2. Cart

      If what the two major parties are offering isn’t to our liking, it’s because we’ve failed to persuade a sufficient number of voters to see things our way. Once the voters see things our way, the political parties and politicians will be falling all over themselves to please us.

      Exhibit 1: cannabis.

      In Barack Obama’s first term, he raided medical marijuana dispensaries hundreds of times. He stopped during his second term because the wind changed direction. Donald Trump doesn’t even raid recreational marijuana dispensaries.

      This demonstrates that it isn’t just that public opinion is the means to change the internal positions of a political party. It’s also that persuasion is so powerful, it can change policy regardless of which party is in power.

      1. What you describe has, unfortunately, now been labeled “Flip-flopping”, as if OUR representatives changing their actions based on political pressure from We The People is somehow a bad thing?!

        I agree with you. Good assessment.

        1. that’s the one glimmer of hope for a Harris presidency. that her will to power is so strong she will flip-flop in a direction the public supports, rather than going full bore authoritarian as is her first instinct.

          1. >she will flip-flop in a direction the public supports

            Except that her voting public are fascist twats.

          2. I hear she doesn’t flip flop while in power, and to get elected she only starfishes

        2. What you describe has, unfortunately, now been labeled “Flip-flopping”, as if OUR representatives changing their actions based on political pressure from We The People is somehow a bad thing?!

          So you’re saying that Trump flip-flopping and supporting rioters and ramping up aggression in the ME would be a good thing?

          Or are you saying that Hillary really did come to accept gay marriage, to the point of attacking allies for even questioning her sincerity and that it totally wasn’t a self-serving political ploy?

          There have been principled changes in opinion, not always is a label of ‘flip-flopping’ ill-deserved.

      2. Speaking of segregation… they are creating a blacks of community in Georgia. Leadership is mostly democrats. Weird how that party is still obsessed with segregation.

        1. Buying up a few hundred acres as a Black only enclave. Which ironically will be legally prohibited by federal civil rights laws — you can’t exclude people from buying or renting real estate based on race.

          1. Maybe not race, but what about Race (TM)?

          2. be fun to watch Roberts write his way out of Shelley

            1. Write his way out of Shelley v. Kraemer or write his way out of getting murdered by the metaphorical monster of his own creation?

              Yes!

      3. this also demonstrates why it is dangerous if the media is co-opted by a single political party\vision. there is still a large voting block that is marinating in the legacy media and are not educated on finding alternative views of events [older people]. There are also many future voters marinating in that same (or similar) narrative with little opportunity for dissenting views. [grade school and universities].
        Of all the vectors for persuasion major target demographics have only a single argument presented.

  13. Shouldn’t we ALL be “Politically Homeless”?

    This is also known as seeing and embracing the nuance of issues, recognizing that the world is not black-and-white nor are most important issues, and recognizing that hitching your cart to a party’s political narrative is intellectually lazy.

    It also keeps our minds open to actually hear what members of other political parties are saying, even when such views oppose our own, and therefore fosters respect.

    I am not going to be voting for Trump. Although I agree with a lot of his politics, he is a wrecking ball who has capitalized on the preexisting divisiveness, and has made matters worse.

    1. >>seeing and embracing the nuance of issues

      i enjoy T’s wrecking ball, believe the divisiveness to be a myth, and believe matters better.

      1. The divisiveness is no myth, but it stems from the leftists refusing to accept the results of the 2016 election, and working with the deep state and the news media and the losing party to try to discredit, impeach, remove, indict and malign the duly elected president in any way imaginable, then blaming the divisiveness on him.

        1. “The divisiveness is no myth, ”

          Hmmmm not so sure. One group of people waging war on the other isn’t divisiveness.

    2. What happens when a group of nuanced people agree to exchange political support on what matters the most to each of them, even if they don’t agree on everything?

      1. I don’t know. It’s never been tried.

    3. That’s not political homelessness, that’s political self-sufficiency. And I think it would appeal to most people, aside from the hardcore fans of tribal partisanship, if we could create a system of representative government, including elections, not dominated by two entrenched parties.

  14. Yes, we have a system based on systemic violence which gives everyone the illusion of consent, even though our governments couldn’t tell us what we really think about anything at all.

    Go go, democracy.

  15. how new media are reshaping politics.

    Hopefully there’s a footnote on how the tech companies are desperately trying to reverse this trend.

    1. That sarcasm, .. right? the tech companies are as bad or worse from what i can see.

      1. I’m not sure what you read into my message, but it seemed clear enough. The Tech companies are desperately trying to ban, de-rank, unperson, or block from search results any new-media creator who reshapes politics while steering you towards so-called ‘trusted sources’.

        1. I notice that the facebook “news” tab makes it impossible to prospectively select the news feeds you want. You have to individually block news sources after reading their crap.

        2. thank you for clearing that up… it is what i was hoping that you meant. i can be a bit obtuse at times

  16. Despite that, Phetasy is optimistic because she thinks new media are staging a conversation that speaks to politically homeless independents.

    Thinking you’re hearing people speaking to you is often a sign of incipient schizophrenia – you might want to have that checked out.

    1. Of course, I guess if you’re imagining voices, imaginary conversations with new media is better than imaginary conversations with God like George Bush had. And I know these were imaginary conversations with God because Barack denied he ever spoke to Bush.

    2. Unfortunately, the very phenomenon that Phetasy talks about is precisely the thing we’re told is “wrong” with the current political landscape. People ‘seeking out’ their own information, news and political commentary outside of trusted gatekeepers.

      I haven’t heard the full interview yet, but I suspect that what she believes is at some point, the reasonable voices will prevail through ‘new media’ and we’ll all return to the warm, comforting womb of center-left politics. And for the record, I don’t think that would be an entirely bad thing (with caveats). But right now, the left isn’t interested in that as the ‘center left’ have been completely cowed by an angry, dangerous and fundamentally destructive political force that they’ve been enabling for decades.

  17. If you’re voting for the lesser of two evils, you’re still voting for evil.

    1. “fig·ure of speech
      noun
      a word or phrase used in a non-literal sense for rhetorical or vivid effect”

  18. >If you want tax cuts, you have to vote for pro-life candidates, for billions more in military spending, and against immigration.

    Meanwhile Trump is ‘arguing that soldiers loved him in spite of their commanders, who, in his telling, “want to do nothing but fight wars” in order to make money for arms manufacturers.’

    So it seems obvious to me which candidate is pushing back against the forever war.

    1. Yeah, I’m not a Trump supporter by any stretch (not a hashtag resistor either), but his foreign policy stances are leaps and bounds better than any President in my lifetime (born in Reagan’s second term).

      The only candidate who might have been better was Tulsi, and well, the Dems stabbed her in the back real quick when she wouldn’t shut up with all that peace talk nonsense.

  19. The major parties are selling Americans on policy bundles that utterly inane. If you want tax cuts, you have to vote for pro-life candidates, for billions more in military spending, and against immigration.

    No real human being could be in favor of tax cuts, against abortion, in favor of defense spending, and anti-illegal immigration. Those people just don’t exist.

    1. Sounds to me like Phetasy is Reason’s specific intellectually-lazy brand of idiotically/ideologically detached and has a publicist that is willing to spend a few bucks at Reason to boost her podcast traffic.

      She sounds like half the other “left libertarian” twats the Reason highlights who insist that they be able to make a serious living through their 20s and 30s by taking their clothes off and then be taken seriously once the TnA doesn’t get the clicks anymore.

      Sorry, half the race doesn’t even get *that* choice one way or the other, so you and your expectation to have it both ways, can go fuck yourself.

      1. She is a total half wit. Her brains are in her boobs. The other thing that never occurs to her is that elections are revealed choice versus stated choice. You can only vote for one guy. And in a country of 300 million people and interests and views as diverse as this one, that one guy is never going to agree with you about everything. Phetasy apparently thinks that everyone in the America thinks exactly like she does and no one in the major parties have figured that out and run on such a platform because they are just stupid or big meanies or something. God what a fucking moron.

        1. >>total half wit.

          7% too much credit.

  20. The new media suffers from Regulatory Capture that creates monopolies. Yes, the current narrative of just create your own platform is the correct one but we need to first end regulatory capture for this to be successful. Not advocating for ending section 230, which isn’t bad if implemented fairly, albeit some judges have concluded that it bars tech companies from any lawsuits.
    I also support shrinking the federal government bureaucracy but also think we need to increase the HoR size to reflect population growth since 1920. And implement term limits in all branches of government (I am a little squishier on the judicial branch but have concluded that term limiting federal judges is probably necessary, maybe requiring a reappointment after a given number of years or just maybe say you can only serve so many years and then you are out if not appointed to a higher position). We like to act as if judges aren’t political creatures but too many are and I think the argument against limiting their terms is that that will make them less independent. While many already don’t seem independent. So would limiting their term or requiring reappointment really make this worse. I think maybe a 10 year or 20 year term would fix some of the political aspect as you can’t be sure (and it is unlikely) that the same party will be in control at the end of your first term. And definitely not the same President, except in the rare case (in a ten year cycle) that a sitting president was a VP who took over during the middle of their predecessors term, appointed you right at the beginning of their first shortened term, and was available to reappoint you right at the end of their second elected term. No VP who took over has been re-elected twice after finishing their predecessors term except Teddy Roosevelt.

    1. My bad, not even Roosevelt managed that trick, and he wouldn’t have been elgible under the current Constitiuton to stand a second re-election anyhow as he took over only months into his predecessor’s first term.

      1. I want to say McKinley served a full four year term before being assassinated early in his second. Though maybe Teddy was only VP for his second term.

        1. Yes. He was SecNavy during McKinley’s first term, then resigned to lead the Rough Riders. Hobart was McKinley’s first VP but died in office in 1899. Roosevelt was selected as the replacement in 1900, mainly to try and rope in the growing progressive wing of the Republican party. It was meant to silence them until McKinley was assassinated and the progressive wing took over with Roosevelt sworn in.

          1. Ha, might be a Biden/Harris parallel in there somewhere.

            1. Except the motives are different. I think they fully expect Biden won’t survive his first term, or be declared mentally incompetent or resign for health reasons.

              1. Yeah, I’d give him until July. Long enough for him and his handlers to install cabinet picks.

  21. Here’s a simple rule of thumb (Pre Trump)
    You can vote for a republican because they will never implement their platform even if they control the presidency and have comfortable majorities in both chambers.

    If you vote for democrats, they will always implement their platforms even if they don’t control the presidency and are minorities in the house and Senate but can rope in a Federal judge to do their bidding.

    1. I don’t think that’s true. Obama implemented next to nothing of his platform.

      Democrats will abuse their powers to implement what their big donors and special interests demand, not what’s in their platform.

      1. Whereas republicans will just destroy all institutions of democracy and steal public money and spend it on Mar a Lago. Simple, fair.

    2. It’s not the God’s Own Prohibitionist platform. In 1928 they assimilated the Prohibition Party platform while the Dems copied the Liberal Party repeal plank. Then in 1968 they co-opted the Ku-Klux Klan planks fielded by George Wallace Dixiecrats. Looter platforms are cheese on a mousetrap… sucker bait. Compare those with the LP platforms

  22. She can bunk at my place while she’s looking.

    1. This is the only acceptable comment in this entire thread.

  23. Phetasy calls herself a “purple person” who is conservative red on some issues and liberal blue on others, and she’s tired of a “toxic binary” that squelches debate within parties.

    She already has accepted the premise that it’s the job of government to identify and address lots of issues, she’s just quibbling over the solutions that the two teams propose.

    Perhaps that makes her politically homeless. It certainly makes her an illiberal authoritarian.

  24. I mostly expect people who can’t tell the difference between Biden and Trump to be those kind of not-all-there slobbering focus group normies on cable news segments. People who actually think about politics ought to be able to figure out that a choice between two platforms in an election will never deliver you 100% of what you want, no matter who you are, and to grow the fuck up and get off the tit of millennial entitlement. At least the Bernies were mature enough to take their embarrassing defeat like grownups in the end. True, it took a string of global calamities to scare them straight, but so what’s your excuse?

    But by all means, if you’re more likely to mash your finger on the Trump button, stay home instead and think all the derp thoughts about how neither of two major American political parties is the same as a unicorn that shits happiness.

    1. Definitions: integrity (n.) loyalty to one’s values.

  25. i make good salary buckets in this link..dollars link

  26. Until the Republicans and Democrats start appealing to voters like her, they will have to eke out tighter and tighter victories by scaring partisans with insane claims.

    You mean like how thousands of Biden supporters are literally rioting in the streets, assaulting people, and setting fire to American cities as they smash out storefront windows like Nazis during Kristalnacht?

    Gods you’re worthless, Gillespie.

  27. Spelling: anti-choice, Comstockian, race suicide warrior, Army of God, anti abortion, girl bullier… These are initiators of force in violation of individual rights. In fact, they qualify as the Anti-life in Part II of Atlas shrugged (See Prohibition Party platform https://www.prohibitionparty.org/platform)

  28. I have been working from home for 4 years now and I love it. I don’t have a boss standing over my shoulder and I make my own hours. The tips below are very informative and anyone currently working from home or planning to in the future could use these.Make 5000 bucks every month… Start doing online computer-based work through our website. READ MORE

  29. Inane is not a verb.

Please to post comments