Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Dr. Insano

People with opposite ideology/beliefs you respect

Recommended Posts

Being a left-wing person I would have to say I greatly admire the integrity and character that people like John Kasich and Mitt Romney have. I admire Ron Paul for his anti-war positions. And believe it or not I like the way that Trump goes after our mainstream media in some cases calling out their corruption.  (he sometimes goes over the line and makes it personal)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dr. Insano said:

Being a left-wing person I would have to say I greatly admire the integrity and character that people like John Kasich and Mitt Romney have. I admire Ron Paul for his anti-war positions. And believe it or not I like the way that Trump goes after our mainstream media in some cases calling out their corruption.  (he sometimes goes over the line and makes it personal)

Since I consider myself a "Radical Reformer for Better, Transparent, and Effective Government that serves the People and Acknowledges the Concept of Justice," does that mean my opposite ideology/beliefs are supporters, more or less, of the status quo and minimal or timid change and reform?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Dr. Insano said:

Being a left-wing person I would have to say I greatly admire the integrity and character that people like John Kasich and Mitt Romney have. I admire Ron Paul for his anti-war positions. And believe it or not I like the way that Trump goes after our mainstream media in some cases calling out their corruption.  (he sometimes goes over the line and makes it personal)

Joe Biden for his years of service

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dr. Insano said:

Being a left-wing person I would have to say I greatly admire the integrity and character that people like John Kasich and Mitt Romney have. I admire Ron Paul for his anti-war positions. And believe it or not I like the way that Trump goes after our mainstream media in some cases calling out their corruption.  (he sometimes goes over the line and makes it personal)

Personally, I have to disagree on Kasich and Romney. I agree with Ron Paul though as long as we're also ignoring pretty much everything besides his anti-war positions.

I'd add Jon Huntsman. He's probably my most respected current Republican. And since somebody else will probably mention him, I'd like to preemptively say I have no respect nor admiration for Charlie Baker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jnewt said:

And since somebody else will probably mention him, I'd like to preemptively say I have no respect nor admiration for Charlie Baker.

Is there any reason for this? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John McCain,Ron Paul,Justin Amash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the Trump-era GOP members that I respect, even if I disagree with them the majority of the time. These are honorable members of the opposition:

  • Jon Huntsman
  • Susan Collins 
  • Lisa Murkowski
  • Nikki Haley 
  • Susanna Martinez
  • Brian Sandoval
  • John Kasich
  • Ben Sasse
  • Jeff Flake
  • Charlie Baker
  • Larry Hogan
  • Chuck Hagel
  • Phil Scott
  • Mitt Romney
  • John McCain
  • Chris Christie (former member of this list until Bridge Gate and Trump endorsement)
  • Bill Weld
  • Arnold Schwarzenegger
  • Scott Brown
  • Chris Sununu 

For the most part, the best Republicans are in New Englanders, in the Mid-atlantic or west of the Rocky Mountains and west of Texas. . Haley, Sasse, and Hagel are the only ones outside these areas--all are also the most tentative on this list. If all the Republicans were like those above, I wouldn't feel like the world was going awry. I'd vote against them, but I wouldn't feel tense or worried. I'd also trust their leadership in a crisis and trust them to protect policies they oppose if those policies are popular or working, even if they use rhetoric that suggests otherwise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Is there any reason for this? 

Lots. He wouldn’t accept any Syrian refugees and he endorsed Geoff Diehl are two. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jnewt said:

Lots. He wouldn’t accept any Syrian refugees and he endorsed Geoff Diehl are two. 

Thanks for clearing this up. Honestly I didn't know about this stances taken by him. Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jnewt said:

Lots. He wouldn’t accept any Syrian refugees and he endorsed Geoff Diehl are two. 

Geoff Diehl was a great candidate and ran a great race against Warren.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Geoff Diehl was a great candidate and ran a great race against Warren.

Geoff Diehl was a horrible candidate (a pro-Trump Republican in the bluest state in the nation) and lost almost as badly as Gonzalez lost to Baker. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, jnewt said:

Geoff Diehl was a horrible candidate (a pro-Trump Republican in the bluest state in the nation) and lost almost as badly as Gonzalez lost to Baker. 

Diehl outperformed Gonzalez's margin by 10 points and earned 100,000 more votes than him. 

Not to mention the fact that Warren's 60% in Massachussetts was the worse in comparison to state partisan lean in a blue wave. Meaning that her incumbency "advantage" was actually a negative disadvantage. He ran really admirably and to win Plymouth County even when there is a Pro-Trump Independent splinter candidate is really something. He ran a great campaign and there's no way around that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

Diehl outperformed Gonzalez's margin by 10 points and earned 100,000 more votes than him. 

Not to mention the fact that Warren's 60% in Massachussetts was the worse in comparison to state partisan lean in a blue wave. Meaning that her incumbency "advantage" was actually a negative disadvantage. He ran really admirably and to win Plymouth County even when there is a Pro-Trump Independent splinter candidate is really something. He ran a great campaign and there's no way around that.

Diehl outperformed Gonzales by 3 points actually. And that still doesn’t make him a not-awful candidate. (Gonzales was too.) He was still absolutely obliterated. It’s basically factual that he was an awful candidate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jnewt said:

Diehl outperformed Gonzales by 3 points actually. And that still doesn’t make him a not-awful candidate. (Gonzales was too.) He was still absolutely obliterated. It’s basically factual that he was an awful candidate. 

I said margin. Diel ran -24 and Gonzalez ran -34. And in a blue wave year, and in a blue state, he actually overperformed the generic republican against a supposedly popular incumbent, making him, by definition, a good candidate. And the margin by which he did so really made him a great candidate for the time and circumstances. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

I said margin. Diel ran -24 and Gonzalez ran -34. And in a blue wave year, and in a blue state, he actually overperformed the generic republican against a supposedly popular incumbent, making him, by definition, a good candidate. And the margin by which he did so really made him a great candidate for the time and circumstances. 

By definition, a good candidate would win or at least make a competitive race. Just because he did better than a generic Republican (which I don’t think he did anyways) doesn’t make him a good candidate. It just means a generic Republican would be an even worse candidate. A good candidate will never get obliterated in a race. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jnewt said:

By definition, a good candidate would win or at least make a competitive race. Just because he did better than a generic Republican (which I don’t think he did anyways) doesn’t make him a good candidate. It just means a generic Republican would be an even worse candidate. A good candidate will never get obliterated in a race. 

I guess we just have different definitions. To me a good candidate defies the general expectation, a great candidate defies the general expectation or wins or almost wins. Diehl was a good candidate, not a great one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

I guess we just have different definitions. To me a good candidate defies the general expectation, a great candidate defies the general expectation or wins or almost wins. Diehl was a good candidate, not a great one.

That's about how I would sum it up. 

A good Democratic candidate in Tennessee is a candidate who hits 42%. An average might hit closer to the mid 30's. A good Democratic candidate here in TN might not win, but it helps change favorability of the party in the state or local region in the long run. 

You don't need to win to be a good candidate, just outperform for the standard for a generic candidate IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Herbert Hoover said:

That's about how I would sum it up. 

A good Democratic candidate in Tennessee is a candidate who hits 42%. An average might hit closer to the mid 30's. A good Democratic candidate here in TN might not win, but it helps change favorability of the party in the state or local region in the long run. 

You don't need to win to be a good candidate, just outperform for the standard for a generic candidate IMO.

Exactly, like Phil 🍞esen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Herbert Hoover said:

That's about how I would sum it up. 

A good Democratic candidate in Tennessee is a candidate who hits 42%. An average might hit closer to the mid 30's. A good Democratic candidate here in TN might not win, but it helps change favorability of the party in the state or local region in the long run. 

You don't need to win to be a good candidate, just outperform for the standard for a generic candidate IMO.

I never said you need to win in order to be a good candidate. But you at least have to be relatively competitive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Dr. Insano said:

Being a left-wing person I would have to say I greatly admire the integrity and character that people like John Kasich and Mitt Romney have. I admire Ron Paul for his anti-war positions. And believe it or not I like the way that Trump goes after our mainstream media in some cases calling out their corruption.  (he sometimes goes over the line and makes it personal)

Ron Paul (for his foreign policy, opposition to "national security" abuses of governance in the wake of 9/11, and cash retention over digital currency), George H.W. Bush (as a President, not a CIA Director, even though he's deceased recently), Peter Lougheed (even though he's deceased as of several years ago), Tony Blair (except for his foreign policy), Helmut Kohl (even though he's deceased as of several years ago), Mikhail S. Gorbachev, Hu Jintao (for attempts to bridge Sino-Western relations, even if sabotaged now by Xi Jinpeng, Abe Shinzo, Trump and certain other Western leaders), Hassan Rouhani (even if he's constantly overruled in his reform and outreach attempts by Ali Khamenei), Paul Kagame, F.W. De Klerk, and Violetta Chamorro all come to mind off the top of my head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, jnewt said:

I never said you need to win in order to be a good candidate. But you at least have to be relatively competitive. 

And there it is, the key word "relative". That's what we're talking about in states that are either super red or super blue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

And there it is, the key word "relative". That's what we're talking about in states that are either super red or super blue.

Geoff Diehl was not relatively competitive, though. If he was, he would have only lost by 10%. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...