Date: July 13th, 2026 12:25 PM Author: Fucking Fuckface
Thanks, that's actually flattering. I would genuinely put the oath of office and duty to the country ahead of my life and my family's lives. The country is completely lost without this level of conviction, but it's almost impossible to to find anyone with it
And even then, you need the double whammy of the candidate/politician not really caring about money. That's why it's so hard: most people have one or the other, but not both qualities
Date: July 13th, 2026 12:33 PM Author: Fucking Fuckface
That's doubly nice because I know we're on different sides of certain things. But that's exactly the type of crossover we need to break the stranglehold of the uniparty. I would cross over too for someone I could trust to be honest about their intentions as long as they were on the same page about certain core things
Date: July 13th, 2026 12:44 PM Author: Crawly theater stage
exactly, I would consider voting for someone right-leaning if they had principles and if I agreed with the central tenets of the platform. like if you ran on a platform where the main things were e.g. anti-corruption and cutting defense spending/ending foreign intervention
Date: July 13th, 2026 12:51 PM Author: Crawly theater stage
I've seen hundreds of your poasts now, and I don't remember what it was about, but only one of them didn't contain a fucking horrible take. not just Bad Takes but awful, completely wrong ones.
Date: July 13th, 2026 1:50 PM Author: Fucking Fuckface
I look past STATED policy differences to examine ACTUAL policy implementations. And on that front, there is much more overlap on items of importance than there are differences
You're the quintessential example of my carve out for there having to be some baseline level of agreement on core issues, because even though you're too stupid to hide your bullshit, you're so virulently debased and dumb that you're just categorically unsupportable
Date: July 13th, 2026 2:36 PM Author: Fucking Fuckface
Monetary policy
The warfare state
Abdicating Congressional power to the Executive
Immigration
FISA (or really wholesale abridgment of civil rights)
Campaign finance
Israel / Zionism
Empire
Insider trading and other corruption
Protection for incumbents
The dual party system
Epsteinism
Eminent domain
Anti-white discrimination
H1Bs / destroying the middle class
Outsourcing / Globalization
Corporate consolidation
Media cooption and concentration
Etc.
How about you show broad examples of the supposed profound differences? You'll prove your point if you can significantly outnumber my off the top of the head list
Date: July 14th, 2026 5:41 PM Author: Fucking Fuckface
You abjectly retarded, mouth-breathing homosexual, it was your own condition to list shit out, not mine
At least somewhere in your 40 watt intellect, there appears to be a dim understanding that going further down the path is dangerous, so you scamper away like a cockroach, using retard speech to hide the fact that you just pissed down your own leg. You deserve credit for that
Date: July 14th, 2026 5:54 PM Author: Turquoise shrine
lol, stupid faggot
Jim Jordan and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez primarily agree on protecting civil liberties against government surveillance, regulating facial recognition technology, and curbing the unchecked influence of Big Tech.
While they sit on opposite ends of the political spectrum and are ranked among the least bipartisan members of Congress, they share overlapping populist views on a few specific issues.
Facial Recognition and Surveillance
During House Oversight Committee hearings, both lawmakers expressed deep concerns about the government's misuse of biometric data.Banning unchecked government use.Protecting First Amendment rights.Guarding Fourth Amendment privacy.Implementing a federal moratorium.💻 Big Tech InfluenceWhile their underlying motivations differ, both lawmakers frequently target the power of dominant technology platforms.Breaking up tech monopolies.Challenging corporat
platform power.Questioning algorithmic data control. AI Deepfake RegulationBoth lawmakers have engaged on legislative paths to counter the spread of nonconsensual, AI-generated content.
Passing the DEFIANCE Act.
Protecting children from exploitation.Holding bad actors accountable.AI can make mistakes, so double-check responses
Date: July 14th, 2026 5:58 PM Author: Turquoise shrine
Sens. Ted Cruz and Elizabeth Warren find rare bipartisan agreement on reining in Big Tech, reforming disaster relief, supporting veterans, and protecting individuals from conservatorship abuse. While they sit on opposite ends of the political spectrum, they have occasionally crossed the aisle to co-sponsor legislation or align on specific public issues.
Key Areas of Bipartisan Agreement
Big Tech Regulation: Both lawmakers frequently criticize the immense power of Silicon Valley. Ted Cruz publicly defended Elizabeth Warren when Facebook temporarily pulled her campaign ads, agreeing with her that massive social media platforms wield too much power over free speech.Disaster Relief Reform: The duo jointly introduced the Regional Impact of Disasters and Emergencies Relief (RIDER) Act. This legislation aims to modify FEMA rules so communities facing cumulative natural disaster damage can receive federal assistance across county or state lines.
Veteran Appreciation: They co-introduced a bipartisan resolution in the Senate to formally designate “Military Retiree Appreciation Day” to honor the life-long service of military retirees.Conservatorship Abuse: Both senators aligned during the high-profile legal battle over pop star Britney Spears' conservatorship. They used their platforms to express public support for the #FreeBritney movement, demanding scrutiny of strict legal arrangements that strip individuals of financial and personal autonomy.
Strategic and Tactical Overlaps
Beyond direct policy agreements, the two have occasionally shared identical political tactics. For instance, both senators famously protested a $1.1 trillion government spending bill. Warren fought the bill to protect Wall Street bank regulations, while Cruz fought it over immigration rules, demonstrating a shared populist willingness to disrupt party leadership to make a point.
Date: July 14th, 2026 5:59 PM Author: Turquoise shrine
holy fuck. with the overlap between libs and conservatives, i can't believe we have two political parties. we sure don't need two. one is enough. they're all the same.
Date: July 14th, 2026 6:04 PM Author: Fucking Fuckface
Your remit was to provide "some examples" of there being much more overlap between our two party system on items of importance than there are differences
I listed a bunch of off the top of my head, most of which are important and broad, and challenged you to exceed my list with your own list of broad areas of importance in which there are serious fucking differences and set an easy win condition for you
Instead of rising to the challenge, you've shrunk away in terror, firing off desperate poasts like an octopus emptying its ink sac to escape from danger
Date: July 15th, 2026 9:48 AM Author: Fucking Fuckface
You don't know what far left looks like if you think AOC meets that standard, just like you don't understand what far right means if you think Ted Cruz or whatever limp-wristed fag you jerk off to is far right
You've proven you know how to use "the google," so why not look up Lenin for the left and Mussolini for the right and have that tiny mind of yours get blown
Date: July 13th, 2026 4:25 PM Author: Crawly theater stage
dude fell into not one but TWO pedo sting ops. he thinks he's the victim because he was targeted by the state for political reasons, but imo that's irrelevant to the fact that he fell for their traps.
the first time, he tried to meet up with someone pretending to be a 16yo girl
the second time wasn't quite as bad because (according to him) the cop pretended to be an adult who had a fetish for pretending to be a little girl. and then they filmed him jerking off as the cop repeatedly said, "I'm 15, I'm 15!" ... not nearly as bad as trying to fuck a kid, but I still think that's pedo-adjacent
Date: July 16th, 2026 7:02 PM Author: Crawly theater stage
lmao at you editing all your creepy rants here. I was already thinking you sounded like TMF; you going back and blanking them makes me think it probably was, and either MND saw or you didn't want her to
Date: July 14th, 2026 1:39 PM Author: Turquoise shrine
Considered one of the most politically liberal members of Congress during his tenure, Kucinich unsuccessfully ran for president in the 2004 and 2008 Democratic primaries.
Date: July 14th, 2026 5:59 PM Author: Fucking Fuckface
I'm impressed that someone of your limited abilities figured out how to operate "the google" to look him up
I'm far away from him on many things, but he is honest, upstanding, and will tell you exactly where he is on things so you can organize against them if you're not on board
That's about all I can ask for from a politician and more than you'd get from almost any other Congressman during my adult life
Date: July 14th, 2026 6:11 PM Author: Fucking Fuckface
I did support Pence...in 2020 when I voted for Trump. You're either too dumb to remember who the VP pick was in 2020, or you supported Biden. Either way, how embarrassing
Date: July 14th, 2026 7:32 AM Author: Internet-worthy odious indian lodge masturbator
better question is who would you flip parties for. jewish dems would vote for Hitler if he had a (D) next to his name (ref: Graham Platner) and shitlib pro-palestine anarchists would vote for Netanyahu for the the same reason. I'm planning on flipping one of my senate votes in 2028 from R to D currently unless something changes. Would be the first time I've ever voted Dem.
Date: July 14th, 2026 12:56 PM Author: Crawly theater stage
Fucking Fuckface
Jon Stewart
Thomas Massie
Butch Ware
Krystal Ball
Glenn Greenwald
Ryan Grim
Viggo Mortensen if he's allowed
Roger Waters if he's allowed (ik he's an asshole but he has good values)
my list includes everything from Libertarians to Green Party members. if their platform is stuff I care about (no more wars / cutting defense spending is #1) I would consider voting for any party affiliation. but I'm much more likely to vote for someone outside of the major two parties than a D or R.