“Moderates by definition have no principles"

[bamacre]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BoberFett seems to be an extremist that cannot accept the fact changes are needed.

And given the resultant economic collapse we saw in the late stages of the GWB administration, its hard to argue changes are not needed.

LOL, create straw man, then argue against it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Many would consider me a moderate but that doesn't mean I don't have strong opinions...I just have opinions opposed to the 2 major parties.

Anti-abortion
anti-death penalty
anti-gun control
pro-universal healthcare
pro-drug legalization
pro-gay rights and marriage
pro-free speech (anti fcc)

I have strong opinions but some are strongly to the left and some strongly to the right.

It is appropriate, I think, that you list these issues as defining. Non of them are of any importance at all. None will reverse the fact that humanity is on the road to extinction.

The real problem humanity faces is self hate. Everybody feels himself or herself to be the worst person in the world and that means that every person, unconsciously wishes that everybody, including himself dies. That is why we are going extinct. We want to. All the pretense otherwise is just a game.

Nobody wants anybody else to win. Nobody will give up advantage for another. Nobody will change until somebody else does. Everybody must have nuclear weapons to feel safe. Everybody who has any advantage must exploit it to the fullest. Everybody has to command the biggest army, the most power, the most money, the most resources, the best of everything. Everybody has to own all the resources, all the power, all the glory, all the praise in the world, and every slight insult must be met with total annihilation of the source.

The world will die because you are far far too good to see that you are mentally ill, and far far too frightened to feel.

Only here and there is there an odd ball exception.

 

[Ozoned]

Agree or disagree?

Going down that road would seem to me to lead to a one-note party where any dissent is viewed as sedition. In fact, I would think that if one were to make this argument that such a charge would be more appropriately directed at those who toe party line on each and every issue without question or consideration. A party endorsing such a view could never compromise or seek middle ground on anything, and as such wouldn't be effective at engendering any positive change, as they saw it, in any legislative efforts unless they had majority power.

From a practical standpoint, evincing hostility towards any moderates would over time drive them out of your party and only diminish both your constituency and your elected representative base. Not a winning strategy come elections I'd think.

I understand there are some issues that people hold so closely that they couldn't bring themselves to vote for someone who didn't represent a shared view on that issue. This is different from wishing for the exile of all moderates because your representative could agree with you on the issue you hold dear, and perhaps reach across the aisle and be more moderate on other issues to which you assign lower priority.

How about saying that they don't give a shit about politics, instead of saying they have no principles.

Your average moderate voter will vote for the guy that can have a net positive impact on his/her lifestyle. They don't know that they are moderates. Most don't cling to a party.

 

[First]

I find moderates tend to be better, more creative thinkers. Whereas party-affiliated persons tend to be highly emotionally invested in politics which generally doesn't actually lead to anything getting done. That doesn't just apply to R's and D's but also a lot of the loonies that are part of the green party, constitution party, libertarian party, and of course anyone affiliated with the tea parties. Though at least as an R or D, you agree on a set of values that can actually get done, while much of the 3rd party crazies tend to want to adhere to principles that no one believes in (usually because they don't make any sense to begin with).

 

[bamacre]

Change scares me. I find comfort being in the majority.

Fixed.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm not sure just what a moderate is. If it means not swallowing the partisan Kool-Aid, then I'm in.

 

[railer]

To further this sidenote - You are dead ass wrong.

Even you leftists don't come out and state it .....

*VERY pro baby killing - ...since it seems that "moderate" to far left libs is...
*************

duhversion

What I've left behind, above, is the reason why the far right is often viewed as "stupid" by most americans. Meaningless emotional namecalling, and nothing else.

 

[railer]

I'm not sure just what a moderate is. If it means not swallowing the partisan Kool-Aid, then I'm in.

Yep. There's nothing worse than someone who casts a vote for an elephant or a donkey "because they're the BEST PARTY!" duh.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

What I've left behind, above, is the reason why the far right is often viewed as "stupid" by most americans. Meaningless emotional namecalling, and nothing else.

Psssttt... to you and the other twit who wanted to whine about what I posted - you should look up margaret sanger sometime.


And you tried to use it as a slam against "stupid" righties when the ignorance and stupidity is yours.

 

[MotF Bane]

I find moderates tend to be better, more creative thinkers. Whereas party-affiliated persons tend to be highly emotionally invested in politics which generally doesn't actually lead to anything getting done. That doesn't just apply to R's and D's but also a lot of the loonies that are part of the green party, constitution party, libertarian party, and of course anyone affiliated with the tea parties. Though at least as an R or D, you agree on a set of values that can actually get done, while much of the 3rd party crazies tend to want to adhere to principles that no one believes in (usually because they don't make any sense to begin with).

Oh, it's you again.

 

[First]

Fixed.

And my post is quickly validated by said fringe crazies.

 

[railer]

Psssttt...

....to you and the other twit who wanted to whine.......

.... when the ignorance and stupidity is yours.

You are quite the debater.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

You are quite the debater.

Did you educate yourself or are you just posting to display your ignorance again?

 

[Moonbeam]

You are quite the debater.

For his school of debate there is a special bus.

 

[railer]

For his school of debate there is a special bus.

And on that short bus, they must constantly shout:

"the libs.......duhr......"
"the left......duhr....."

<repeat to infinity>

All I ask is that people post with a little bit of intelligence - the moronic, partisan namecalling that passes for debate around here is just mind-numbing.

And I can almost hear him now "....uh...u must be one of dem der LIBERALS.....snort...duh....."

 

[nobodyknows]

I find moderates tend to be better, more creative thinkers. Whereas party-affiliated persons tend to be highly emotionally invested in politics which generally doesn't actually lead to anything getting done. That doesn't just apply to R's and D's but also a lot of the loonies that are part of the green party, constitution party, libertarian party, and of course anyone affiliated with the tea parties. Though at least as an R or D, you agree on a set of values that can actually get done, while much of the 3rd party crazies tend to want to adhere to principles that no one believes in (usually because they don't make any sense to begin with).

The sun rises in the east and sets in the west, but surely we can see our best right at high noon, which just happens to be right smack dab in the middle?

 

[Mursilis]

I'm not sure just what a moderate is. If it means not swallowing the partisan Kool-Aid, then I'm in.

There are all sorts of moderates. Some actually have principles and can explain them in a way that demonstrates why they're "moderates", but most are just sort of wandering aimlessly in the political landscape, ebbing and flowing with the tides, never sure where they stand. I hate that kind - it just demonstrates lazy intellect. For example, I've met many people who are VERY pro-choice ("because the gov't can't tell a woman what to do with her body!!"), but oppose drug legalization ("because it's bad for you!!"). That's never made sense to me at all. Either the gov't can't control your body, or it can. Might as well outlaw bad tattoos or something.

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

It is appropriate, I think, that you list these issues as defining. Non of them are of any importance at all. None will reverse the fact that humanity is on the road to extinction.

The real problem humanity faces is self hate. Everybody feels himself or herself to be the worst person in the world and that means that every person, unconsciously wishes that everybody, including himself dies. That is why we are going extinct. We want to. All the pretense otherwise is just a game.

Nobody wants anybody else to win. Nobody will give up advantage for another. Nobody will change until somebody else does. Everybody must have nuclear weapons to feel safe. Everybody who has any advantage must exploit it to the fullest. Everybody has to command the biggest army, the most power, the most money, the most resources, the best of everything. Everybody has to own all the resources, all the power, all the glory, all the praise in the world, and every slight insult must be met with total annihilation of the source.

The world will die because you are far far too good to see that you are mentally ill, and far far too frightened to feel.

Only here and there is there an odd ball exception.

Ok, cool thanks.

 

[Atreus21]

Agree or disagree?

Going down that road would seem to me to lead to a one-note party where any dissent is viewed as sedition. In fact, I would think that if one were to make this argument that such a charge would be more appropriately directed at those who toe party line on each and every issue without question or consideration. A party endorsing such a view could never compromise or seek middle ground on anything, and as such wouldn't be effective at engendering any positive change, as they saw it, in any legislative efforts unless they had majority power.

From a practical standpoint, evincing hostility towards any moderates would over time drive them out of your party and only diminish both your constituency and your elected representative base. Not a winning strategy come elections I'd think.

I understand there are some issues that people hold so closely that they couldn't bring themselves to vote for someone who didn't represent a shared view on that issue. This is different from wishing for the exile of all moderates because your representative could agree with you on the issue you hold dear, and perhaps reach across the aisle and be more moderate on other issues to which you assign lower priority.

The modern use of the word "moderate" is a misnomer. It's a political term, like socialist, and apologist. A moderate in todays world is an enemy who agrees with you. In use, it has no objective definition.

Frankly, if I had to decide who are moderates, I'd say everyone here is a moderate. Nobody here is calling for the killing of jews, or lynching of blacks. We've learned, with only one exception in my opinion (abortion), to get over the most grave injustices of our species. Today we argue for the most part about comparatively trivial matters when seen against the backdrop of history.

 

[Atreus21]

And I can almost hear him now "....uh...u must be one of dem der LIBERALS.....snort...duh....."

A fine example of Liberal tolerance, open-mindedness, intellect, and non-stereotyping.

 

[MotF Bane]

There are all sorts of moderates. Some actually have principles and can explain them in a way that demonstrates why they're "moderates", but most are just sort of wandering aimlessly in the political landscape, ebbing and flowing with the tides, never sure where they stand. I hate that kind - it just demonstrates lazy intellect. For example, I've met many people who are VERY pro-choice ("because the gov't can't tell a woman what to do with her body!!"), but oppose drug legalization ("because it's bad for you!!"). That's never made sense to me at all. Either the gov't can't control your body, or it can. Might as well outlaw bad tattoos or something.

People are stupid.

 

[jonks]

So I suppose the question has multiple parts:

1 - do you think moderates have principles?
2 - if no, do you want any of them in your party?
3 - if no, how do you think your party is going to win any national elections?

 

[werepossum]

I've found that most people who are avid supporters of a party are either very far to the left or right, have an irrational hatred for one party (as opposed to the policies of its fringe), or don't really follow politics. Seems to me that if you really follow what politicians are doing you end up not supporting a party so much as voting for whichever candidate and/or party you despise least at the moment. You could still be not a moderate though, you might be a staunch liberal or conservative without identifying strongly with a particular party. For instance, you could be a staunch fiscal conservative but hate the Republican Party's stance on the environment or social issues, or a staunch supporter of the environment but despise the Democrat Party's stance on socialized medicine or bail-outs for corporations.

So the question of moderates could apply to the political spectrum or to the parties alone. They aren't the same thing at all; a Georgian might be a staunch yellow-dog Democrat but yet be much more conservative across the board than most New York Republicans. Even when the vast majority of people in an area are agreed on most issues, we still feel the need to divide into two groups, otherwise we wouldn't be able to argue past the primaries.

 

[Infohawk]

Some "moderates" have no principles. Some have a smaller set of core principles than others. Some also have a purposely vague set and will compromise them when the situation arises.

True but I also think that still some other moderates tend to pick their fights more than partisans. Take an issue like don't ask don't tell. Many moderates accept it not because they don't think it might be better to have openly-gay gays in military or completely out of the military but because it's not that important in the grand scheme of things compared to other issues.

However, there's no question that in many cases moderates are on the wrong side of history. Take the abolitionists in the 19th century. Anyone who wanted to craft some sort of compromise surrounding slavery was and is wrong at the end of the day.

 

[Rangoric]

True but I also think that still some other moderates tend to pick their fights more than partisans. Take an issue like don't ask don't tell. Many moderates accept it not because they don't think it might be better to have openly-gay gays in military or completely out of the military but because it's not that important in the grand scheme of things compared to other issues.

However, there's no question that in many cases moderates are on the wrong side of history. Take the abolitionists in the 19th century. Anyone who wanted to craft some sort of compromise surrounding slavery was and is wrong at the end of the day.

And sometimes having abatch of people that realize something has to be changed, make it easier for the people that want to change it to what is right.

DADT is the perfect example. Moderates may not care about it, but that means that someone who wants to do what is right (as in remove it) won't have opposition from them, and may even get help from some Moderates who think it is silly (since not all moderates are the same).