politics

Sexton urges GOP expulsion rule change

Jim Sexton (center, in gray shirt) speaks at Support Our Police rally he organized at Vermont State House.

by Guy Page

An Essex Junction conservative GOP activist has urged a Vermont GOP rule change allowing for elected officials who do not follow the party platform to be removed from the party.

Jim Sexton – a write-in candidate for governor, organizer of State House rallies for mask/vaccine freedom, defending police, and supporting the right to life and bear arms, Trump supporter, and runner-up in the election for GOP party chair in November – is a fervent opponent of Gov. Phil Scott.

“If at any time during their term, a person who as elected as a Republican betrays the Republican Party rules or mission, that person will be removed from the Vermont State GOP as a member,” Sexton’s proposal reads. Disqualifying examples include support for Planned Parenthood, BLM, mandates restricting the right to work, assemble, and worship.

Although Sexton’s proposed rules change does not mention Scott specifically, in other public statements Sexton has accused Scott of failing to adhere to these and other Republican Party platform issues.

Sexton presented the proposal at a state GOP finance committee meeting earlier this month. There was no response from committee members, and few party leaders have expressed interest, he said recently.

Support Vermont DailY Chronicle TODAY for $9/MONTH

Categories: politics

57 replies »

  1. Thank you Jim! Many of us throughout Vermont wholeheartedly agree with your proposal!
    Let’s see how many will STAND UP and BE COUNTED!

    We will see our Republican State Party grow “WHEN/IF” Vermont Republicans get serious about really “BEING REPUBLICANS” who seek to follow our Constitutions and fulfill the Republican Platform. There should be PRINCIPLES the PARTY STANDS FOR with NO EXCEPTIONS.

    “Going along to get along” with those who want to call themselves Republican when they don’t believe or act like Republicans, has seriously damaged the Vermont Republican Party for many many years. This has been the main reason we hear, when we ask for citizens to join Vermont Town/County Parties.

    WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO GET THIS DONE?

    • JIm will get jettisoned from the party for speaking like this, they much prefer to promote rinos.

  2. This partisan scrutiny sounds like trouble, and is obviously targeted toward Gov. Scott. The abortion issue alone does not necessarily follow party lines and there is the risk of alienating those who believe in reproductive rights but support 99% of the rest of a conservative platform. I used to consider the democrat party the advocate of the middle class working person but I have not voted for one single democrat since Bill Clinton’s first term as President and I am pro-choice for reasons too complicated to bring up here. I support Gov. Scott, knowing that a more conservative GOP candidate would not have a chance against a Molly Gray type democrat. The VTGOP cannot afford to lose support in this mindlessly brainwashed, liberal state of Vermont. In this age of (maybe too much) communication, voters and supporters can find out everything they need to about a candidate and make up their own mind about whether to send them a check, advocate for them or vote for them. A candidate’s own platform means more to me than their party affiliation. Bernie Sanders specifically defines himself as an independent but last week, in a display of true hypocrisy, was leading the charge critical of Sen. Manchin’s defiance of adhering to the democrat “platform”.
    I would instead suggest pushing for something that will make people have to actually do their homework before voting: pass a bill that will absolutely prohibit party labels on any Vermont ballot.

  3. Oh boy, here we go ! A litmus test for party purity. I can see the Independent label growing, and the “big tent” label being diminished as it pertains to both (all three) parties, as the vast majority of people are in fact politically “impure” to any one side. Be careful what you wish for as this may become as the wokeness label has become to the left, a situation where we are eating our own, and cannibalism will only make us sicker, and as much as I enjoy watching the left devour each other, I would hope we are better than that.

    • Dear Patrick Finnie,

      You are way off track with your emotional “litmus test” analogy. What is a Party Platform? It describes the Beliefs and Standards of a Party. Is this something new and unique?

      It used to be that both Major Political Parties recognized the importance of adherence to the United States Constitution as our Supreme Foundational Law which lays out our Individual Inalienable Rights and Freedoms for ALL EQUALLY.

      In the name of “woke and inclusion” it is now fashionable for both Major Political Parties to trash, ignore and disregard the True Source and Foundation of our United States Constitutional Republic.

      What will “The People” do once the Foundation is fully broken and non-existent?

      • Believer, Litmus test as defined by Wikipedia, “A litmus test is a question asked of a potential candidate for high office, the answer to which would determine whether the nominating official would proceed with the appointment or nomination. BINGO in the front row ! As far as being “emotional’……..

    • Dear Mr. Patrick Finnie,

      Thank you for the definition. However, I’m sure we are all aware of what a litmus test is.

      My statement about you being “way off track with your emotional litmus test analogy,” was referring to the tone and context of your words. Specifically, you said,”Oh boy, here we go! A litmus test for party purity.” Your words put a cynical and negative slant on something intended to be genuine and positive.

      The purpose of defining and agreeing on Party Beliefs, Standards and Principles is to give meaning, purpose and direction to the Party. It also communicates what the Party stands for so those who are in agreement can join and work on Party goals together. If adhered to, it would also give voters knowledge and hopefully trust about Party Candidates.

      It’s NOT about purity, since we are ALL fallible human beings who make mistakes. It is about ALL who join and use the Party Name agreeing to be accountable, so the Party doesn’t loose its’ meaning, purpose, direction and goals.

  4. Thank you, Jim. When people vote, they are voting for folks who will best represent their values, ideals, hopes, and dreams for their family, state, and country. Those who are elected should follow traditional party lines within reason. When elected officials betray the voters’ trust (especially repeatedly as is this case), they should be asked to step down, and they should do so.

  5. How about as well, expulsion from the house for any and all politicians who use their insider information to trade on the open market that info for profit and for any politician taking monetary kick-backs for their vote…in any way…regarding for example, awarding contracts, govt purchases of any kind…?…Since you’re trying to improve party standings with the people and all…Oh, and what about term limits?

    • Yes!! Many others agree!!

      Sign on to The Convention of States to help their efforts to get term limits among other important matters.

  6. We have to embrace the sad reality that we in Vermont are 60 years into the post-Phil Hoff, hippie migration transformation. It’s not pretty what has become of this once-great State of Vermont but we venture further into la-la land if we embrace the fantasy that we can somehow elect a Ron DeSantis-type governor and legislature now. The VTGOP must take full advantage of the growing number of “moderate” voters being outraged by gun restrictions, fringe sexuality taught in schools, police defunding, out-of-control education spending and public-sector unions driving the high cost of living in Vermont. These are bread and butter issues with broad appeal but due to the propaganda of pop culture and the liberal media, many of these folks are driven off by MAGA hats and Let’s Go Brandon. Appealing to the centrist voter is the last hope for the VTGOP to have any relevance and appeal into the future. The truth is not always easy to accept, but if we dont, freedom-minded Vermonters will be permanently relegated to the proverbial woodshed.

    • It appears to me that you are advocating what has already been going on. The decline of the conservatives in Vermont has been due to allowing republicans to act like democrats after they are elected. The fact that Phil Scott boasted about his displeasure with President Trump and his broadcast that he voted for Joe Biden is one example. Then we had Joe Benning calling regular Vermonters names for traveling to DC in January adding Randy Brock in for his support for Benning and other Dem/Prog policies does not make a republican party. We have not attracted people to the party, we have pushed them away. When I hear people say, why should I vote for republicans they aren’t any different then what’s there already. The three above didn’t help the party, they helped tear it apart. We have Pat, Bernie and Peter and we have two radical female leaders in the house and senate. Whatever you may currently think is working, isn’t. The governor has lost his veto power so what do republicans have left to hold the state from total anarchy from the left? No one on the other side will switch until they see a difference in my opinion.

    • So one can stay true to their convictions and not be a rino. The banter between left and right is what keeps people from sanity and the uniparty in power.

      It should be like two sane parents bringing up children, different roles but the same goal.

      Right now we have one party that is sleeping with the United Nations, new world order team, much like those on the corner near a red light.

      The other one still holds a part time job, but is getting kick backs from lobbyists and corporations.

      When we step back and take an honest look, about the actions of leadership, we can easily conclude they are in it for themselves, as witnessed by how they vote, vote on bills they never wrote nor read, leave office with massive amounts of money.

      If you look at how washington dc votes, you’ll see the vote washington establishment every time. If 50% of the people in washington are republican, how come 96% voted for Hillary? 97% voted for Biden? It’s all about who will protect the swamp most, who is the puppet for the new world order, suddenly money comes flowing your way.

      Ever notice that no matter who is in the majority they never vote for less money? Always much more? Don’t be fooled by uniparty games, look to their actions.

      • Mr. Johnson,

        You have described the mess we ALL know as our Federal Government in Washington, DC. The question is: How did it get that way?

        It ALL starts at the local level. Towns/Cities within each state elect their local, state and federal leadership. If Washington, DC is made up of mostly selfish, greedy, immoral politicians, who voted them into office? Why are they voted in over, and over and over, in spite of their obvious behaviors?

    • Dear Mr. Richlachapelle,

      What is a “moderate voter.” Is it a voter who is afraid to be defined or reveal their beliefs? Is it someone who wants to ride the middle grey line to “go along to get along?”

      I would say that the Vermont State GOP Party has been appealing to the “moderate voters” for many, many years. I would also say the Democrat Party has been doing the same.

      Talking with Vermont Citizens I have heard repeatedly, there is no reason to join a Political Party or help a Political Party, because they don’t stand for anything. There has been less and less Citizen participation each year. How is this a functioning government system for “The People?”

      ALL this as we fall farther down the slippery slope of Progressive-ism, Socialism, Marxism and Tyranny,

      • Fortunately in Vermont, you dont have to be registered with a party affiliation to participate in the electoral process. When one of the two major parties established a “platform”, I really dont want every candidate of their party to go along lock, stock and barrel. That is the whole point of this discussion: to decide who to vote for on the candidate themself, and NOT their party. If Joe Manchin was our senator, I would be proud to vote for him. That doesn’t make me a “democrat”.

      • Fortunately in Vermont, you dont have to be registered with a party affiliation to participate in the electoral process. When one of the two major parties established a “platform”, I really dont want every candidate of their party to go along lock, stock and barrel. That is the whole point of this discussion: to decide who to vote for on the candidate themself, and NOT their party. If Joe Manchin was our senator, I would be proud to vote for him. That doesn’t make me a “democrat”.

        response:
        While all may be fine for you personally, I’m talking about the system as a whole. Our election system has the two Major Parties of Republicans and Democrats. They win the overwhelming majority of races.

        Candidates designate their party affiliations for identification, so if the Parties are not defined what meaning does a candidate affiliation have?

  7. Yes, Thank You Jim!!! How can anyone help get them kicked out or make them take a stand?? Should we be calling our GOP representatives? The Dem ones too?
    Mary

  8. “STAND UP and BE COUNTED,” says the first responder. Well, that will be very easy once this circular firing squad gets going! When will certain people learn that the majority of voters in Vermont are moderates, probably even tilting to the left, and there are very few enclaves where a dogmatic conservative can get elected?

    • Mr. Koch,

      Thank you! You have perfectly identified the problem.

      Instead of choosing Immovable Principles to Stand On, such as our Inalienable, Individual Constitutional Rights and Freedoms, the Republican Party has put it’s finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing.

      At this point, both major parties “stand for nothing” which has allowed the socialist, marxist, progressives to take over. How’s that working out for us?

  9. Disclaimer: I’m an ‘Independent’.

    But that this targeted scrutiny is ‘troublesome’ depends on one’s perspective. Any Vermont Democrat of consequence would celebrate this proposed two-edged Republican sword, as will those advocating for a ‘third’ party.

    The Republican Party Rules already provide, under Rule 16 – Candidate Rule, ¶3. “The Executive Committee, by majority vote, may vote to withhold support from a candidate for cause.”

    Perhaps Republicans should exercise existing rules before painting themselves into an even smaller corner.

    • Easier said than done Mr. Eshelman.
      You would first need a Republican Party Leadership that follows what is written and would “allow the existing rule to be followed.”

      • Then the discussion is moot from the get-go…. which is the party leadership’s continuing problem. If it can’t function with the rules it has, making more rules won’t help.

      • Change won’t come easy, but what do we have to loose?

        A proposal offered to specifically define some foundational Republican Party Principles is not the same as having a general,vague rule,” to withhold support from a candidate for cause.”

      • Good point. But the vagary exists in the proposed amendment too, if not more so. Specificity is often (almost always) restrictive. That was why the Federalists argued against the Bill of Rights. To articulate them limited the prospect of those issues not specifically considered in each amendment.

        In business law, when specifying contractual limitations of any kind, our favorite phraseology is the preamble to any specific qualifying list. It is the phrase ‘including but not limited to’ ……

        It’s hubris to think anyone can anticipate all of the effects any specific tenant may have on our future circumstances – other than a mathematical one. Suffice it to say, the more specificity in a contract, the more restrictive it is – the less flexible it is, the less it can adjust with changing times.

        What do we have to lose? Well, that’s a great question… because we are already losing. And I’m suggesting that it’s the inflexibility of our reasoning that causes this demise in the first place. Again, we have the tools we need. What we’re missing is the ‘leadership’.

  10. I may sound incredibly simplistic, but I am so very tired of the fighting between the parties; I would advocate an OPEN PARTY system where there are no sides; I vote for who I think will do the best job, have for a long number of years. I get so very frustrated with Primary when I am forced to CHOOSE a party…I am not any of them, and I take offense to having to choose to be something I am NOT. Insider trading is rampant not just in Congress/Senate but Fed reserve as well, TERM LIMITS will definitely help and I am onboard 100%; The wealth associated with elected officials (after) elected is a CRIME in my humble opinion and being of “Service” is a joke at this point unless of course one counts “Service to self”. Term Limits with NO lifetime pay; go do your job, go home to your income stream, whatever that was….it is due time for a CHANGE in the System we now have, doesnt work, hasnt for a long time…..and is corrupt

    • What you are advocating won’t happen because political parties have platforms and follow certain ideologies. Each candidate has to attach to one or the other. Conservatives believe in the individual, liberals believe in a collective approach. I know this is much more complicated but the point is that candidates have to associate their beliefs with one set of ideas or the other. They will never blend because there has to be structure. And within that structure there has to be rules, platforms and leaders. Your thought is noble but I don’t see it ever happening.

    • Dear Natureaboundsnortherngirl,

      The basis of your thinking is a problem. We don’t live in a Utopian world. We live in a world where both good and evil and right and wrong exist. We live in a world where each human being has free will, choice and personal responsibility. In this real world we live in, conflict is inevitable.

      Instead of bemoaning the situation, looking for a non-existent Utopia and giving up, pick a real place to exist. Make choices you Believe In and Stand for them. If you make up the reality you want to live in, instead of living in the reality that exists, you can’t even try to make a difference.

    • I should have added to my comment that I agree with your term limits, limiting legislative by sending them back into the community to live under the same laws they make for us. I would also like to see a 5 year residency requirement before being eligible to run for state and local political office. Something has to be added to the oath of office to give it teeth. They take an oath to follow, protect and not harm our constitution and if they propose unconstitutional laws, they should be expelled. Just one man’s opinion.

    • @natureaboundsnortherngirl
      Term limits don’t work, they never have. Term limits are strictly applied in Mexico, for example. They only make the corrupt politicians more aggressive because they know their time to “harvest” is limited.

  11. It pains me to see Vermont’s hard-core conservatives taking the VTGOP down the same path as the VT Libertarian party where they spend 95% of their time arguing about what it means to be a REAL Libertarian, and they have their meetings in the produce section of the Price Chopper.

    • If I’m not mistaken, nothing has been settled here and other opinions are usually accepted. I usually agree with your comments but I have witnessed the destruction of the republican party from the time Phil Hoff was elected until now. Whatever republicans thought they were doing to expand the party didn’t happen and doing the same thing won’t either. In fact, the republicans in our the VT senate could probably meet in the Deli section of the grocery store to frame your analogy. And that doesn’t make me very happy either.

      • If you are asking me, I think it’s the perfect time to talk about individual freedom, responsibility to ones self, censorship of the media, government transparently, the bloated welfare system, unfriendly business climate and restrictions, the over licensing of small businesses, a stable economy, banning outside political money, our bloated government, union control of education, unfunded state retirement, the nanny state in all of our lives and more. No more go along to get along and show the difference these changes could make to young families and older people who must leave their birth state to escape the crushing cost of living here. We have a bloated government that sucks up more revenue than it takes in, survives by getting 30% of it’s budget from the federal government that is also broke. Eliminate this climate change fiasco that will do nothing to affect the climate and quit pushing poison into our children whether it’s a failed biotechnology vaccine or drugs being smuggled into the state from Mass, Conn, and NY. Support our police in the battle against this drug scourge killing and ruining our children. There’s so much to highlight and show the voters that we don’t have to surrender our state to the carpetbagger politicians to enrich themselves and their donors with there out of state money. It’s all there to be exposed, to shine a light on. We just need people with the spirit of Ethan Allan to step forward to lead this state back to it’s self reliant republic. The other option is to surrender.

      • YES DANO!! I FULLY AGREE!!

        Dano said, “We just need people with the spirit of Ethan Allan to step forward to lead this state back to it’s self reliant republic.”

        We need courageous people to step up for Freedom!! We need to remember that our part is as “WE THE PEOPLE!” The politicians work for us! It’s our job to make them accountable!!

        FREEDOM IS NOT FREE!!

      • My comments are based on the reality I see that with the voter base in Vermont, the only way for the VTGOP to rise from the ashes is to appeal to the political center. That does NOT mean abandoning conservative principles, but it does mean toning down the extremes and emphasizing advocacy for common ground issues that also appeal to the center. For example, gun rights is not an extreme issue when sound reasons are made for supporting leaving the status quo alone. Fiscal issues need to be stressed that use the left’s word “unsustainable” to describe the current financial mess in Vermont and that proposing expensive new social programs will make the problem a lot worse. Many folks in the political center are upset with the latest proposals from Montpelier and the President’s policies nationally. This is the time to win them over.

    • That’s the point Rich… People, especially those who espouse to be in the Libertarian Party, don’t understand that the term ‘Libertarian Party’ is an oxymoron… a contradiction of terms. I’m libertarian, to be sure. But that’s with a small ‘L’. I have libertarian sensibilities, which means – Cogito, ergo sum. Nothing more. And I understand that no two people with libertarian sensibilities ever think exactly alike. Being of libertarian sensibilities is the epitome of not being in ‘a party’.

      If there is, on the other hand, a document that can be characterized as embodying ‘libertarian’ sensibilities, it’s the United States Constitution.

  12. Hello H. Jay Eshelman,

    Thank you for your response. I do agree that adherence to Standards and Principles is not easy and/or black and white. We have obviously seen this play out with our United States Constitution. We have seen some seriously diluted and evil things come from the twisting and contorting of language by Supreme Court Justices such as “abortion, the murder of human babies in the womb” as a Constitutional Right.

    Even with ALL the obvious human wrongs over the years, I Believe if the Constitution (Foundation of Principles and Standards for Freedom) were non-existent, the United States would have ceased to exist long ago. Our problem is not the absence of leaders, but the absence of moral, virtuous, GOD-Fearing, Freedom-loving Citizens to vote in like-hearted leadership and continue on in their duty to hold those leaders accountable.

    • Beware the proverbial ‘Armageddon Response’. No one, least of all me (obviously), is advocating for a ‘non-existent’ Constitution.

      And it’s a false dichotomy to say that we don’t have an ‘absence of leaders, but the absence of moral, virtuous, GOD-Fearing, Freedom-loving Citizens to vote in like-hearted leadership and continue on in their duty to hold those leaders accountable.” That is, after all, what ‘leaders’ are. Changing the terms in the Republican Party Rules doesn’t change that.

      But you are correct in that we are all (at least the majority of us) delinquent in our responsibility to hold our leaders accountable. But that’s not because we don’t already have the tools to do so. It’s MHO that changing the Republican ‘Party Rules’, in the way proposed by Jim, is not only mere ‘pillow arranging’, it obfuscates the specific issues that affect us.

      Let’s get to the heart of the matter. Give us your list for correcting course, and why you believe each item on the list will be beneficial.

      Interestingly, it was Jesse Ventura, of all people, who coined the phrase: “You can’t legislate morality.”

      But: “Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe.” Abraham Lincoln

  13. Vermont Democrats: “Hey guys, lets create a communist system of total government control with no borders, slave labor, freely available drugs to distract critics and abortion on demand.

    We can do it by creating unreasonable regulations to kill small businesses and we can set extortionate debt traps for whenever anyone wants to become educated, gets sick or tries to buy a house. We will keep the minions in fear with ever changing social rules so we can have them shunned by calling them racist, sexist or a Nazi whenever we like. And we should get our buddies to create a whole series of 501-c entities to help (worsen) social problems and enrich ourselves in the process ”

    Vermont Republicans: OK, but lets do it slowly.

  14. Hello Mr. Eshelman,

    I wasn’t trying to communicate a “proverbial ‘Armageddon Response.” I would not pretend to know you well enough to make that accusation of you.

    I wrote about a non-existent Constitution in reference to our elected State and Federal Officials who ignore and/or outright oppose our Constitution(s) as the Foundational Structure and Supreme Law of our Governments. They are ALL required and take Oaths to uphold and adhere to our Constitution(s) yet, they do not follow through and in some cases flagrantly act in opposition.

    Truth be told, we could easily make a list of traitors and insurrectionists who exist as our representatives in our State and Federal Governments.
    A traitor is: One who betrays trust, duty or allegiance.
    An insurrectionist is: One who openly revolts against a constituted government.

    I don’t understand what you are saying about the Vermont State Republican Party? Citizen Voting Representatives from throughout the State vote in the State Party Leadership. If they voted in moral, virtuous, GOD-Fearing, Freedom-loving leadership, and held them accountable to agreed upon Party Standards and Principles, that would be a really good start.

    If the elected leadership of the party is unwilling to hold potential candidates and others already in office accountable, to the same agreed upon Party Standards and Principles, there should be an agreed upon process to replace the leadership.

    • Re: “I don’t understand what you are saying about the Vermont State Republican Party?”

      I wasn’t talking about the Vermont State Republican Party per se, but rather, Jim’s proposed party rule change.

      Re: “… there should be an agreed upon process to replace the leadership.”

      I think Jim’s rule change was directed to candidates who are up for election in the legislature and administration, not the Republican Party ‘leadership’. But in either case, Rule 4 already addresses the process for the Vermont Republican Committee. And Rule 16 – ¶3. addresses the process for a Republican candidate.

      • There are existing rules, but there are two problems.

        1.) The rules are too general/vague to have clear meaning. The rules need to be detailed
        and clear, so ALL understand.

        2.) The rules need to be followed/implemented. GOP State Leaders need to have the
        courage and Beliefs to follow, both being accountable themselves and bringing
        accountability when necessary potential candidates and those who may already
        hold office.

      • Wouldn’t it be simpler and more effective to just amend Rule 16 to require each candidate or committee member to clarify their position on the matters Jim or ‘the committee’ cites before they gain party support – under the current rules?

        Will those who want to join the VT GOP have to declare their personal platform position too? If, for example, a prospective party member doesn’t favor the personal ownership of a grenade launcher or machine gun, a debatable 2nd Amendment infringement, does that disqualify them from being a party member?

        After all, no matter what the rules, or what a candidate says, once they’re elected, the party with which they’re affiliated can’t recall them.

      • Hello Mr. Eshelman,

        I Believe there should be vigorous debate to work on the details. Your suggestion to amend existing rules is certainly a possibility.

        While the Party may not be able to recall an elected candidate that breaks with Party Standards and Principles, a strong dutiful Party Leadership and Members can certainly be very vocal in publicly expressing their opposition to violation(s). If the candidate doesn’t change, the Party could also openly and publicly express their withdrawal of support for the elected candidate.

        If we are very careful in picking our candidates upfront, hopefully this would not be a problem.

  15. The party is FRACTURED…. and until we get folks off their ARES to vote we will loose every 2 years…. what we have under the golden dome are REPUBLICAN LITES… “THEY” have lost their conservative values and play nice.. nice with the left… no BALLS…..

    • You won’t get people off the Ares to vote until they can be confident that their vote actually counts. Vermont Republicans haven’t had a real candidate for Sec of State for years. They have allowed the Democrats to undermine the voting to such an extent that it isn’t even possible to do a credible audit.
      And they don’t even try to address it.

  16. Seems to have hit a nerve.

    Huh, who’d a thunk?

    It would be nice to have both teams playing for the United States at least and the constitution. If not both it would be nice for at least one.

    The Uniparty is very strong in this state. (Pimps for the United Nations, Water boys and girls for the New World Order)

    • Neil,
      You have hit on the real problem. Republicans don’t even bother to set out coherent policies. Instead they bicker on the sidelines about emotional wedge issues and do little or nothing to protect our constitutional rights. The right to bodily autonomy, the right to self defense, the right to free speech and even the right to vote are all just political buzzwords to our politicians. They mean nothing.

      • There are good people, knowledgeable people within both parties, they are not in a position of influence. People are easy to manipulate when they are mad. They are also great at donating, to which both parties have discovered to their profit and plan of keeping America divided and their pockets full, all the while selling out our country and getting rich.

        It’s in some ways a perfect foil. Ther is an antidote, love your neighbor is a start, then suddenly after having some sane conversations you find common ground and might realize you’re both being had by the swamp creatures.

        Pride, the simple idea of “I’m right” keeps us from the truth. We don’t look further than we need to justify our actions and thoughts, of which the media will quickly fuel us and overflow our cup with hatred and justification for thinking we are right. And so goes the battle.