The Shining City Upon a Hill

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • SalesServiceGuy
    Field Supervisor

    Site Contributor
    5,000+ Posts
    • Dec 2009
    • 8104

    #10411
    Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill

    Group of Republicans and Democrats form new political party to appeal to moderates


    A group of former Republican and Democratic officials are forming a new political party called Forward, in an attempt to appeal to what they call the "moderate, common-sense majority."

    "Political extremism is ripping our nation apart, and the two major parties have failed to remedy the crisis," David Jolly, Christine Todd Whitman and Andrew Yang wrote in a Washington Post op-ed published Wednesday. "Today's outdated parties have failed by catering to the fringes. As a result, most Americans feel they aren't represented."

    Jolly is a former Republican congressman from Florida, Whitman a former Republican governor of New Jersey and Yang is a former Democratic presidential and New York mayoral candidate. The three will merge their political organizations into the new party, whose launch was first reported by Reuters.

    The group cites issues including guns, climate change and abortion as those that could benefit from a moderate approach. The new party will also advocate ranked-choice voting and open primaries, the end of gerrymandering, and nationwide protection for voting rights.

    "Sixty-two percent of Americans now want a third party, a record high, because they can see that our leaders aren't getting it done," Yang told CNN's Brianna Keilar on "New Day" on Thursday in a joint appearance with Whitman. "And when you ask about the policy goals, the fact is the majority of Americans actually agree on really even divisive issues. The most divisive issues of the day like abortion or firearms -- there's actually a commonsense coalition position on these issues and just about every other issue under the sun."

    Forward is planning a national convention next summer and will soon seek ballot access to run candidates in 2024, according to the Post op-ed.

    The party said in a news release that it would launch "a national building tour this fall to hear from voters and begin laying the groundwork for expanded state-by-state party registration and ballot access, relying on the combined nationwide network of the three organizations." It plans to gain legal recognition "in 15 states by the end of 2022, twice that number in 2023, and in almost all U.S. states by the end of 2024."

    While Forward won't be running its own candidates in this year's midterm elections, it will "support select candidates in November who stand up for our democracy, even if they come from outside the new party," according to the news release.

    Jolly, Whitman and Yang acknowledged the clear lack of success third parties have had in the United States previously, writing in their op-ed, "Most third parties in U.S. history failed to take off, either because they were ideologically too narrow or the population was uninterested." But they said that "voters are calling for a new party now more than ever," citing a Gallup poll from last year.

    "Americans of all stripes -- Democrats, Republicans and independents -- are invited to be a part of the process, without abandoning their existing political affiliations, by joining us to discuss building an optimistic and inclusive home for the politically homeless majority," Jolly, Whitman and Yang wrote.
    Asked by Keilar on Thursday why they believe their effort to create a third party would work, Whitman said, "We're in a different time."

    "When you have 50% of the American people saying that they are registered independent ... people are sick and tired of what they're seeing in Washington and the fact that nothing major is getting done is frustrating them. We have big problems and we want to see them resolved," she said.

    A few independent candidates have earned national attention in their races this cycle. In Utah, Evan McMullin, who ran for president in 2016 as an anti-Trump conservative, is challenging GOP Sen. Mike Lee and has the backing of the state Democratic Party. In Missouri, John Wood, a former senior investigator for the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, is running as a "commonsense alternative" to the field of Republican and Democratic candidates for the state's open US Senate seat. And in Oregon, former state Sen. Betsy Johnson, who left the Democratic Party last year, is a top contender in the open governor's race.


    Comment

    • SalesServiceGuy
      Field Supervisor

      Site Contributor
      5,000+ Posts
      • Dec 2009
      • 8104

      #10412
      Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill

      New benefits for burn pit victims in limbo after Senate Republicans block plan


      A surprise deal on health care and environmental policies announced by Senate Democratic leaders Wednesday afternoon produced an unexpected casualty: the comprehensive toxic exposure legislation veterans advocates expected to pass this week.
      The Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Actwith an expectation of final passage before the end of the week.

      The measure passed the Senate by a comfortable 84-14 vote in early June, and by a 342-88 vote in the House two weeks ago with significant Republican support.

      But on Wednesday, after technical corrections sent the measure back to the Senate for another procedural vote, 41 Senate Republicans blocked the measure, leaving its future uncertain.
      Republican lawmakers who had previously voted against the measure, including Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), reiterated objections to how the money connected to the measure (about $300 billion over 10 years) would be accounted for in the regular appropriations process.


      Democratic leaders immediately attacked their colleagues for putting political vendettas ahead of needed veterans benefits.




      That timeline appears out of reach now.

      If it becomes law, about one in five living American veterans could benefit from the PACT Act.

      For veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bill would establish a presumption of service connection for 23 respiratory illnesses and cancers related to the smoke from burn pits, used extensively in those war zones to dispose of various types of waste, many of them toxic.

      Comment

      • slimslob
        Retired

        Site Contributor
        25,000+ Posts
        • May 2013
        • 36855

        #10413
        Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill

        Please Wait... | Cloudflare

        Comment

        • slimslob
          Retired

          Site Contributor
          25,000+ Posts
          • May 2013
          • 36855

          #10414
          Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill

          Far-Left Mayor Begs National Guard To Help With Spike In Illegal Immigrants, Asks FEMA To Provide Them Cash - DC Enquirer

          Comment

          • Hansen88
            Service Manager

            Site Contributor
            1,000+ Posts
            • Dec 2009
            • 1046

            #10415
            Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill

            Originally posted by SalesServiceGuy
            New benefits for burn pit victims in limbo after Senate Republicans block plan


            A surprise deal on health care and environmental policies announced by Senate Democratic leaders Wednesday afternoon produced an unexpected casualty: the comprehensive toxic exposure legislation veterans advocates expected to pass this week.
            The Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Actwith an expectation of final passage before the end of the week.

            The measure passed the Senate by a comfortable 84-14 vote in early June, and by a 342-88 vote in the House two weeks ago with significant Republican support.

            But on Wednesday, after technical corrections sent the measure back to the Senate for another procedural vote, 41 Senate Republicans blocked the measure, leaving its future uncertain.
            Republican lawmakers who had previously voted against the measure, including Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), reiterated objections to how the money connected to the measure (about $300 billion over 10 years) would be accounted for in the regular appropriations process.


            Democratic leaders immediately attacked their colleagues for putting political vendettas ahead of needed veterans benefits.




            That timeline appears out of reach now.

            If it becomes law, about one in five living American veterans could benefit from the PACT Act.

            For veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bill would establish a presumption of service connection for 23 respiratory illnesses and cancers related to the smoke from burn pits, used extensively in those war zones to dispose of various types of waste, many of them toxic.
            On the news thismorning they said they didnt vote for it because of all the pork that was in the bill.

            Comment

            • SalesServiceGuy
              Field Supervisor

              Site Contributor
              5,000+ Posts
              • Dec 2009
              • 8104

              #10416
              Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill

              Originally posted by Hansen88
              On the news thismorning they said they didnt vote for it because of all the pork that was in the bill.
              ... the same Republican senators voted for the exact same bill a week earlier. The only reason they did not vote for it this time was because they were spiteful over the Chips and Inflation Act of 2022 moving forward.

              ... because of blatant Republican political motives, US soldiers who have suffered long term injuries from close contact to burn pits will not get the care they deserve. This accounts for roughly 1 in five veterans of recent wars.

              Comment

              • slimslob
                Retired

                Site Contributor
                25,000+ Posts
                • May 2013
                • 36855

                #10417
                Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill

                Originally posted by SalesServiceGuy
                New benefits for burn pit victims in limbo after Senate Republicans block plan


                A surprise deal on health care and environmental policies announced by Senate Democratic leaders Wednesday afternoon produced an unexpected casualty: the comprehensive toxic exposure legislation veterans advocates expected to pass this week.
                The Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Actwith an expectation of final passage before the end of the week.

                The measure passed the Senate by a comfortable 84-14 vote in early June, and by a 342-88 vote in the House two weeks ago with significant Republican support.

                But on Wednesday, after technical corrections sent the measure back to the Senate for another procedural vote, 41 Senate Republicans blocked the measure, leaving its future uncertain.
                Republican lawmakers who had previously voted against the measure, including Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), reiterated objections to how the money connected to the measure (about $300 billion over 10 years) would be accounted for in the regular appropriations process.


                Democratic leaders immediately attacked their colleagues for putting political vendettas ahead of needed veterans benefits.




                That timeline appears out of reach now.

                If it becomes law, about one in five living American veterans could benefit from the PACT Act.

                For veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bill would establish a presumption of service connection for 23 respiratory illnesses and cancers related to the smoke from burn pits, used extensively in those war zones to dispose of various types of waste, many of them toxic.
                Let's see who really benefits. "All veterans who left the ranks in summer 2017 or later' and "Veterans who left between summer 2014 and summer 2017" but what about those of us who left ranks between the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the summer of 2014? And then 3 paragraphs later it states "Those who age 85 and older" and in the same paragraph it states "For others, the presumptive status will start on Oct. 1, 2026."

                Now lets do some math. All those who left in the summer of 2017 or later would be age 65, if they left because they reached mandatory retirement age, or younger and won't reach age 85 for another 20 years or more. As for those "those suffering extreme health or financial problems." Who is going to decide if the health or financial problems are extreme enough to qualify?

                Why the hell doesn't Congress just give all veterans access to Tricare for life. That way they can use the local doctor of their choice. Hopefully I can get Kevin to put that on the top of the legislative agenda for January.

                Comment

                • slimslob
                  Retired

                  Site Contributor
                  25,000+ Posts
                  • May 2013
                  • 36855

                  #10418
                  Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill

                  Please Wait... | Cloudflare

                  Comment

                  • Phil B.
                    Field Supervisor

                    10,000+ Posts
                    • Jul 2016
                    • 22798

                    #10419
                    Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill

                    Same mayor that turned down troops on Jan 6

                    Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

                    Comment

                    • slimslob
                      Retired

                      Site Contributor
                      25,000+ Posts
                      • May 2013
                      • 36855

                      #10420
                      Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill

                      "I've Delivered": New Disclosures Demolish Biden's Denials On Hunter Dealings - Truth Press

                      Comment

                      • Copier Addict
                        Aging Tech

                        Site Contributor
                        10,000+ Posts
                        • Jul 2013
                        • 14379

                        #10421
                        Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill

                        Originally posted by slimslob
                        Let's see who really benefits. "All veterans who left the ranks in summer 2017 or later' and "Veterans who left between summer 2014 and summer 2017" but what about those of us who left ranks between the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the summer of 2014? And then 3 paragraphs later it states "Those who age 85 and older" and in the same paragraph it states "For others, the presumptive status will start on Oct. 1, 2026."

                        Now lets do some math. All those who left in the summer of 2017 or later would be age 65, if they left because they reached mandatory retirement age, or younger and won't reach age 85 for another 20 years or more. As for those "those suffering extreme health or financial problems." Who is going to decide if the health or financial problems are extreme enough to qualify?

                        Why the hell doesn't Congress just give all veterans access to Tricare for life. That way they can use the local doctor of their choice. Hopefully I can get Kevin to put that on the top of the legislative agenda for January.

                        They won't give all veterans access to Tricare because all the republicans and Manchin would vote against it. We all know that

                        Comment

                        • bsm2
                          IT Manager

                          25,000+ Posts
                          • Feb 2008
                          • 29407

                          #10422
                          Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill

                          Comment

                          • bsm2
                            IT Manager

                            25,000+ Posts
                            • Feb 2008
                            • 29407

                            #10423
                            Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill

                            Comment

                            • bsm2
                              IT Manager

                              25,000+ Posts
                              • Feb 2008
                              • 29407

                              #10424
                              Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill

                              Originally posted by slimslob
                              Let's see who really benefits. "All veterans who left the ranks in summer 2017 or later' and "Veterans who left between summer 2014 and summer 2017" but what about those of us who left ranks between the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the summer of 2014? And then 3 paragraphs later it states "Those who age 85 and older" and in the same paragraph it states "For others, the presumptive status will start on Oct. 1, 2026."

                              Now lets do some math. All those who left in the summer of 2017 or later would be age 65, if they left because they reached mandatory retirement age, or younger and won't reach age 85 for another 20 years or more. As for those "those suffering extreme health or financial problems." Who is going to decide if the health or financial problems are extreme enough to qualify?

                              Why the hell doesn't Congress just give all veterans access to Tricare for life. That way they can use the local doctor of their choice. Hopefully I can get Kevin to put that on the top of the legislative agenda for January.

                              Because the Republicans Dont give out or support healthcare what a Surprise

                              Comment

                              • Copier Addict
                                Aging Tech

                                Site Contributor
                                10,000+ Posts
                                • Jul 2013
                                • 14379

                                #10425
                                Re: The Shining City Upon a Hill

                                Originally posted by bsm2
                                Because the Republicans Dont give out or support healthcare what a Surprise
                                And once the soldiers return from fighting the wars, Republicans would rather not hear from them again.
                                Last edited by Copier Addict; 07-30-2022, 02:33 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...