Respectfully it’s almost always a choice between imperfects or lesser of evils. Incrementalism is how the left is so successful. The right should try the same tactic.
Respectfully it’s almost always a choice between imperfects or lesser of evils. Incrementalism is how the left is so successful. The right should try the same tactic.
Ann k, I think we have actually done the incrementalism thing for decades. But it’s gotten us nowhere really. The left continues to advance and it’s not because people are refusing to vote for less than perfect candidates. I’ve always voted for the lesser of two evils but I see it only gets worse. The only solution is for us comfortable people to get off our butts and start electing at the local level. Start raising a fuss about filling out gender nonsense at your doctors office. Start showing up at drag queen events for kids, and things like that. Start picketing your republican candidates and hold their feet to the fire. But in the end, the left is successful because they play dirty. We can’t go there.
Agree we can't play dirty (engage in illegal acts) but we must match the left when they change the rules even when it's really distasteful to do so. The fainting couch routine has gotten us nothing but a two-tiered system, one set of rules for them, another for us.
There's a big difference between holding one's nose and pulling the voting lever when there are only two choices versus financially supporting someone this early in the game.
Financially supporting a known pro-abortion candidate crosses a huge red line, certainly for me and I would imagine most of the commenters here. If it doesn't disqualify someone from being voluntarily given money, then what does?
I agree the lesser evil is more often in politics the only choice. RFK junior’s legacy is at least speckled with some incongruent But the Democratic Party that he grew up on was less radical than today’s mania . Then there’s that appearance that they seem to have a radical on every base and one has to ask if he’s just playing his role in the global tyranny. He has however angered his own family with his anti vax opinions which incidentally are looking more and more like fact… the real science. His anti vax work and his children’s health coalition are extremely impressive. It’s the abortion stance and climate change that I would like to hear him explain. Also any connections to WEF or Global initiatives.
Respectfully it’s almost always a choice between imperfects or lesser of evils. Incrementalism is how the left is so successful. The right should try the same tactic.
Ann k, I think we have actually done the incrementalism thing for decades. But it’s gotten us nowhere really. The left continues to advance and it’s not because people are refusing to vote for less than perfect candidates. I’ve always voted for the lesser of two evils but I see it only gets worse. The only solution is for us comfortable people to get off our butts and start electing at the local level. Start raising a fuss about filling out gender nonsense at your doctors office. Start showing up at drag queen events for kids, and things like that. Start picketing your republican candidates and hold their feet to the fire. But in the end, the left is successful because they play dirty. We can’t go there.
Agree we can't play dirty (engage in illegal acts) but we must match the left when they change the rules even when it's really distasteful to do so. The fainting couch routine has gotten us nothing but a two-tiered system, one set of rules for them, another for us.
Agree 100%
There's a big difference between holding one's nose and pulling the voting lever when there are only two choices versus financially supporting someone this early in the game.
Financially supporting a known pro-abortion candidate crosses a huge red line, certainly for me and I would imagine most of the commenters here. If it doesn't disqualify someone from being voluntarily given money, then what does?
I agree the lesser evil is more often in politics the only choice. RFK junior’s legacy is at least speckled with some incongruent But the Democratic Party that he grew up on was less radical than today’s mania . Then there’s that appearance that they seem to have a radical on every base and one has to ask if he’s just playing his role in the global tyranny. He has however angered his own family with his anti vax opinions which incidentally are looking more and more like fact… the real science. His anti vax work and his children’s health coalition are extremely impressive. It’s the abortion stance and climate change that I would like to hear him explain. Also any connections to WEF or Global initiatives.