'Flaming Leftist' Admits There Is Common Ground Between Trump Supporters and Liberals

[Kamaji]

'Flaming Leftist' Admits There Is Common Ground Between Trump Supporters and Liberals

Sarah Arnold
August 20, 2023

A far-Left wing media nonprofit found mutual agreement with several Trump supporters during the former president's rally in Pennsylvania last week.

John Russell, a representative from More Perfect Union and self-proclaimed "flaming Leftist," admitted Trump was right on several issues, saying he had a "hunch" that he could find common ground with MAGA voters.

"We are polarized; there is no doubt about it," Russel said. "For all the focus on culture war issues, the working class on the left and the right have much in common than we're led to believe."

The liberal argued that even though Republicans and Democrats have significant differences in their beliefs, all Americans appear to stand their ground on several issues, such as the economy. Russel admitted this revelation could have substantial impacts on the 2024 presidential election.

"Despite some irreconcilable differences between us, there's an aggressive pro-worker economic agenda that appeals to Americans across the political spectrum," he continued.

One Trump supporter said that the 45th president no longer belongs to the Republican Party or otherwise his GOP colleagues would have his back as the former president endures political persecution from the Left.

"You know he's definitely not a Republican because then Mitch McConnell and they would be backing him, and DeSantis wouldn't be running against him," they said. "He's obviously not a Democrat anymore, so we're more of a politically homeless faction that loves America and will make all the changes."

Another Trump voter condemned the Democratic Party's stance on foreign policy, to which Russel agreed.

*  *  *

Source:  https://townhall.com/tipsheet/saraharnold/2023/08/20/flaming-liberal-admits-there-is-common-ground-between-trump-supports-and-liberals-n2627268

[LMAO]

This is what many of us have been saying.

Funding Planned Parenthood
Growing the size of the federal government
Massive deficits
Government run  Healthcare
Protectionist tariffs

The list goes on and on

[DB]

In 2016 Trump could have run as a Democrat or a Republican. His selection of party has always been situational based on which he could get the most mileage out of at the time. He has no anchors based on principles. He's a populist with no foundation. It is easy for him to hold two diametrically opposed positions without batting an eye. And those glaring contradictions are just "multidimensional chess" to rationalize them away for the faithful. And here we are again going down the same dead end road.

[roamer_1]

In 2016 Trump could have run as a Democrat or a Republican. His selection of party has always been situational based on which he could get the most mileage out of at the time. He has no anchors based on principles. He's a populist with no foundation. It is easy for him to hold two diametrically opposed positions without batting an eye. And those glaring contradictions are just "multidimensional chess" to rationalize them away for the faithful. And here we are again going down the same dead end road.

Oh he DOES have 'principles' based in NYC values. And therefore liberalism. Its what he has always been, and old dogs don't change. Thus his belief in big government.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

In 2016 Trump could have run as a Democrat or a Republican. His selection of party has always been situational based on which he could get the most mileage out of at the time. He has no anchors based on principles. He's a populist with no foundation. It is easy for him to hold two diametrically opposed positions without batting an eye. And those glaring contradictions are just "multidimensional chess" to rationalize them away for the faithful. And here we are again going down the same dead end road.

 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

One Trump supporter said that the 45th president no longer belongs to the Republican Party or otherwise his GOP colleagues would have his back as the former president endures political persecution from the Left.

"You know he's definitely not a Republican because then Mitch McConnell and they would be backing him, and DeSantis wouldn't be running against him," they said.

I just can't wrap my head around how strange that logic is. When was the last time a non-incumbent had no challengers for their party's nomination??  It's obviously different if you're the incumbent, as evidenced by the fact that nobody ran against Trump in the 2020 primary.   But if it you're not the incumbent, then anyone else is entitled to run for that nomination. That is how it always has been.

At the barest minimum, don't Republican primary voters deserve an actual choice?  The argument that nobody should run against Trump because that is somehow "not Republican" is just ludicrous.

[LMAO]

I just can't wrap my head around how strange that logic is. When was the last time a non-incumbent had no challengers for their party's nomination??  It's obviously different if you're the incumbent, as evidenced by the fact that nobody ran against Trump in the 2020 primary.   But if it you're not the incumbent, then anyone else is entitled to run for that nomination. That is how it always has been.

At the barest minimum, don't Republican primary voters deserve an actual choice?  The argument that nobody should run against Trump because that is somehow "not Republican" is just ludicrous.

Yup

[Right_in_Virginia]

I just can't wrap my head around how strange that logic is. When was the last time a non-incumbent had no challengers for their party's nomination?? 

Apparently in 1980 and the "Above the Fray" primary strategy ---- until losing Iowa proved otherwise.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Apparently in 1980 and the "Above the Fray" primary strategy ---- until losing Iowa proved otherwise.

You're an idiot.  If that gets me banned as a personal attack, so be it.

Because only an idiot - or I suppose just a liar - would claim that Reagan had no challengers for the GOP nomination.  Literally 8 other Republicans challenged Reagan for the nomination.  Gerald Ford actually led the polls early, and was still pulling 32% of the polls as late as February 1980.

Hell, if anything, Ford would have been the "Trump" in that election.  A former President who had lost his first bid for re-election coming back to try to win four years later.  Of course, unlike Trump, he didn't just demand that everyone else bow out and hand him the nomination by acclamation.  He ended up announcing right before the first primary that he was out, but that still left nine candidates competing for the nomination.

So no, the answer to:

When was the last time a non-incumbent had no challengers for their party's nomination?? 

Is not "1980"

Idiot.

[DB]

You're an idiot.  If that gets me banned as a personal attack, so be it.

Because only an idiot - or I suppose just a liar - would claim that Reagan had no challengers for the GOP nomination.  Literally 8 other Republicans challenged Reagan for the nomination.  Gerald Ford actually led the polls early, and was still pulling 32% of the polls as late as February 1980.

Hell, if anything, Ford would have been the "Trump" in that election.  A former President who had lost his first bid for re-election coming back to try to win four years later.  Of course, unlike Trump, he didn't just demand that everyone else bow out and hand him the nomination by acclamation.  He ended up announcing right before the first primary that he was out, but that still left nine candidates competing for the nomination.

So no, the answer to:

Is not "1980"

Idiot.

I simply put her on ignore. Don't need paid shill propaganda.