Were a Centrist 3rd party to form, would you support it?

[2aguy]

I would support one if they actually stood for cutting taxes, cutting spending, getting the federal government out of our lives as much as possible, pro-life, pro-military, builds a border fence, fixes the immigration process, gets the government out of providing our healthcare, got out of federal education, increased military spending to rebuild our navy...

Yeah...show me any centrist who will do those things

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Just curious.

This could be an interesting discussion.

People would probably be interested in defining "Centrist".

Also, you might want to count in the personality factor. Were a really well known American to decide to take an independent run for the White House, would you support that person?

A centrist is a person who lacks conviction, knowledge or a moral compass.....a fence-sitter. So, no, I would not vote for anyone who does not understand political philosophy.

No, a centrist is a person who realizes that not every issue black and white and neither the "conservatives" nor the "liberals" should be permitted to force the entire country to follow their way or hit the highway.


I'll give an example.

A centrist policy for gay marriage would be " No, the government should not have any say in who consents to marry who (consent being the key word so don't come at me with comments about children or animals) but at the same time NO you don't get to force people to take part simply because they own a business.

That would absolutely, positively be the correct, and constitutional thing to do, but extremists on both sides insist that its their way or the highway and anyone who is reasonable is a "fence sitter"

 

[blackhawk]

Depends on what their positions on the varying issues are not everyone will have the same view of what is centerist.

 

[CherryPanda]

My support would definitely depend on their platform. What would they offer to solve the current issues? Would they just mix the ideas of the existing parties or would they offer something new?
Too many ifs and too much needed to go up the political ladder...

 

[Statistikhengst]

There are basically two major political PHILOSOPHIES in the world. Aristotle, among others, originally defined them for us, but certainly history as clarified the differences for us.

I don't really disagree with any of your post. The problem as I see it is not so much the overall philosophical differences between the two parties, as it is the behavior of the two parties over the last ten years, give or take, which has driven them even further apart, leaving a clear and increasing chasm in the middle.

The behavior has not been the same, by the way: The Republicans have become far more absolutist, the Democrats have become more willing to (finally) admit what they're really after, a Euro-social democracy. No thanks to both, in my opinion. I can't endorse either party with my one little vote.

Here's how it manifests: Most Americans are not hardcore partisans, they're not going to agree with/defend to the death their party on every issue. Different overall philosophies? Sure, great. But from an independent perspective, I can tell you that both parties look like wild-eyed zealots right now and are not very attractive.

And by the way, I agree, finding reasonable conversation here can be a challenge!

.

Actually, I think there are more than two major philosophies throughout the world.

And part of why I made the poll was to see who might come by and remind that there are usually more than 2 possible solutions to most problems and issues. So, the idea that a Centrist is somehow a fence-sitter is an idea with which I do not agree.

 

[Mac1958]

There are basically two major political PHILOSOPHIES in the world. Aristotle, among others, originally defined them for us, but certainly history as clarified the differences for us.

I don't really disagree with any of your post. The problem as I see it is not so much the overall philosophical differences between the two parties, as it is the behavior of the two parties over the last ten years, give or take, which has driven them even further apart, leaving a clear and increasing chasm in the middle.

The behavior has not been the same, by the way: The Republicans have become far more absolutist, the Democrats have become more willing to (finally) admit what they're really after, a Euro-social democracy. No thanks to both, in my opinion. I can't endorse either party with my one little vote.

Here's how it manifests: Most Americans are not hardcore partisans, they're not going to agree with/defend to the death their party on every issue. Different overall philosophies? Sure, great. But from an independent perspective, I can tell you that both parties look like wild-eyed zealots right now and are not very attractive.

And by the way, I agree, finding reasonable conversation here can be a challenge!

.

Actually, I think there are more than two major philosophies throughout the world.

And part of why I made the poll was to see who might come by and remind that there are usually more than 2 possible solutions to most problems and issues. So, the idea that a Centrist is somehow a fence-sitter is an idea with which I do not agree.

Oh yeah.

One of the more destructive behaviors of partisanship is its simplistic, binary, either/or thought.

I don't know if the thought processes of partisans are that simplistic, but that is sure as hell how it looks.

It's either simplistic thought or narcissistic behavior. Maybe a bit of both. Either way, it's killing us.

.

 

[Billy000]

Just curious.

This could be an interesting discussion.

People would probably be interested in defining "Centrist".

Also, you might want to count in the personality factor. Were a really well known American to decide to take an independent run for the White House, would you support that person?

There is a viability problem of an independent gaining popularity in this country. I really don't think there would be enough of the population willing to come to common ground on such a variety of issues that arise during a presidential campaign.

I would fully support a centrist party, but I just don't see one rising to the ranks of the mainstream public. Centrists in general just aren't very common. They are a small minority.

 

[Statistikhengst]

There are basically two major political PHILOSOPHIES in the world. Aristotle, among others, originally defined them for us, but certainly history as clarified the differences for us.

I don't really disagree with any of your post. The problem as I see it is not so much the overall philosophical differences between the two parties, as it is the behavior of the two parties over the last ten years, give or take, which has driven them even further apart, leaving a clear and increasing chasm in the middle.

The behavior has not been the same, by the way: The Republicans have become far more absolutist, the Democrats have become more willing to (finally) admit what they're really after, a Euro-social democracy. No thanks to both, in my opinion. I can't endorse either party with my one little vote.

Here's how it manifests: Most Americans are not hardcore partisans, they're not going to agree with/defend to the death their party on every issue. Different overall philosophies? Sure, great. But from an independent perspective, I can tell you that both parties look like wild-eyed zealots right now and are not very attractive.

And by the way, I agree, finding reasonable conversation here can be a challenge!

.

Actually, I think there are more than two major philosophies throughout the world.

And part of why I made the poll was to see who might come by and remind that there are usually more than 2 possible solutions to most problems and issues. So, the idea that a Centrist is somehow a fence-sitter is an idea with which I do not agree.

Oh yeah.

One of the more destructive behaviors of partisanship is its simplistic, binary, either/or thought.

I don't know if the thought processes of partisans are that simplistic, but that is sure as hell how it looks.

It's either simplistic thought or narcissistic behavior. Maybe a bit of both. Either way, it's killing us.

.

I am convinced that a number of possible solutions to various problems would require both major parties to accept things that they don't like, but the entire idea of principled compromise is pretty much the way America was built, from the ground up.

There is a reason why now and then, a third party candidate shows up and a good percentage of the public votes for that candidate - now and then, the public is just totally fed up. What is lacking, as another member mentioned, is the presence of a viable third party at the state level - and a lack of 3rd party representatives in Congress.

 

[g5000]

I would support one if they actually stood for cutting taxes, cutting spending, getting the federal government out of our lives as much as possible, pro-life, pro-military, builds a border fence, fixes the immigration process, gets the government out of providing our healthcare, got out of federal education, increased military spending to rebuild our navy...

Yeah...show me any centrist who will do those things

That is not centrist. That is Tea Party.

 

[Billy000]

I would support one if they actually stood for cutting taxes, cutting spending, getting the federal government out of our lives as much as possible, pro-life, pro-military, builds a border fence, fixes the immigration process, gets the government out of providing our healthcare, got out of federal education, increased military spending to rebuild our navy...

Yeah...show me any centrist who will do those things

Lol good god dude any candidate that would do all of those things is not a centrist. That is a typical nutty republican.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Most Americans are not hardcore partisans, they're not going to agree with/defend to the death their party on every issue.

Agreed. Poltiical messageboards overweight and overamplify the number of people who behave like this, where instead of approaching anything from a non-biased viewpoint they will simply decided how it fits into the platform of their chosen political ideology and blindly attack/defend based on that perception.

I believe a far greater percentage of people are more centrist than forums like this represent.

 

[Mac1958]

Most Americans are not hardcore partisans, they're not going to agree with/defend to the death their party on every issue.

Agreed. Poltiical messageboards overweight and overamplify the number of people who behave like this, where instead of approaching anything from a non-biased viewpoint they will simply decided how it fits into the platform of their chosen political ideology and blindly attack/defend based on that perception.

I believe a far greater percentage of people are more centrist than forums like this represent.

Yup.

Unfortunately, a vast majority of the energy and influence in each party comes from its wingers, and they're the people who are existing in an ideological cocoon.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Who the fuck are you finger pointers talking about?

 

[Pennywise]

I have more respect for Bernie Sanders than I do for John Boehner. Conversely I have more respect for Ted Cruz than I do for Joe Lieberman.

I don't think much of two-faced political piggies. I admire people who speak their mind plainly and succinctly, and don't give a fiddler's fuck which way the winds of public opinion fly. I'm tired of voting for phonies and I'm done voting for them.

A centrist is a bullshit feel-good concept. There is no benchmark for such a silly idea. Is a centrist pro-choice and pro-gun, or anti-abortion and anti-gun?

Goofy.

 

[Youch]

I don't really disagree with any of your post. The problem as I see it is not so much the overall philosophical differences between the two parties, as it is the behavior of the two parties over the last ten years, give or take, which has driven them even further apart, leaving a clear and increasing chasm in the middle.

The behavior has not been the same, by the way: The Republicans have become far more absolutist, the Democrats have become more willing to (finally) admit what they're really after, a Euro-social democracy. No thanks to both, in my opinion. I can't endorse either party with my one little vote.

Here's how it manifests: Most Americans are not hardcore partisans, they're not going to agree with/defend to the death their party on every issue. Different overall philosophies? Sure, great. But from an independent perspective, I can tell you that both parties look like wild-eyed zealots right now and are not very attractive.

And by the way, I agree, finding reasonable conversation here can be a challenge!

I like you.

I agree with much of your sentiment.

However, I would disagree that most Americans are not partisans. Blacks, for example, foolishly vote 95% democrat. From my experience, most folks just look for the (D) or (R) and make horrible assumptions based on that. Voting is based largely on ignorance, IMNSHO.

Perhaps more to your point, I contend that both parties have drifted away from conservatism. For the Left it is ideological and crony-capitalism. For the Right it is merely crony-capitalism. One such proof, among many I can cite, is that you've not heard a single prominent Republican mention repeal of Obamacare for months, perhaps over a year. Why? They've conceded. Why? It enriches the career politician. Wanna talk amnesty? RINOS are all in. So much for the rule of law or conservatism.

Final point.....a third party always ends up electing another democrat, as it divides the republican base. Democrats are politically smarter than republicans, as they usually don't make those mistakes, perhaps Nadar being the exception.

Considering that moderates/centralist are known to be pragmatic, saying that they "lacks conviction, knowledge or a moral compass.....a fence-sitter" demonstrates someone drinking way too much of the daily partisan Kool-aid. In actuality, the opposite is true.
Strong partisans have a high tendency to go with whatever rigid stance their ideology dictates to them. That approach is lazy and very, very narrow-minded, it also lacks the usage of using one's grey matter. It lacks looking at issues objectively. In other words, it's the easy way out.
Without objective and inquiring thinking, the simple wheel wouldn't of ever come to existence. The Constitution would not have been born.
The only way to solve a problem is putting your hands around it, looking at the entire problem from all angles and dissecting the problem to find the best solution. Problems are not solved by just looking at one side of the problem.
How long did civilization think the world was flat? It took centuries for someone to challenge the age old theory that the world was indeed flat because people were content to believe what was fed to them. Every successful company is successful because of the usage of objective thinking to further their success.
A pragmatic individual studies the issue and comes to a conclusion. A follower just accepts what they are told by their small minded leaders.
Thinking out of the box is the perfect approach to any problem, thinking within a box leads to certain failure.

Please explain the silly notion that people who know little of the inevitabilities of political positions are considered pragmatic???? Capitulation is pragmatic? Hardly. Please engage....

Again, the term "partisans" refers to political parties, not philosophical thought. You just made the point that partisans have rigid ideologies. That is true, in some respects, but it fails to address certain fundamental things.

The world being flat is off topic. Can you justify modern liberal ideology? Can you demonstrate failed conservative ideology? THAT is the point I was making....that to pretend there is some great middle ground is to ignore the fundamentals. So, what, is this great middle ground going to capitulate? And to which ideology? And for how long?

No, a centrist is a person who realizes that not every issue black and white and neither the "conservatives" nor the "liberals" should be permitted to force the entire country to follow their way or hit the highway.


I'll give an example.

A centrist policy for gay marriage would be " No, the government should not have any say in who consents to marry who (consent being the key word so don't come at me with comments about children or animals) but at the same time NO you don't get to force people to take part simply because they own a business.

That would absolutely, positively be the correct, and constitutional thing to do, but extremists on both sides insist that its their way or the highway and anyone who is reasonable is a "fence sitter"

Sorry to correct you, but you cannot separate "the constitutional thing to do" from conservatism. Anything else is a bastardization of the terms and positions.

Actually, I think there are more than two major philosophies throughout the world.

And part of why I made the poll was to see who might come by and remind that there are usually more than 2 possible solutions to most problems and issues. So, the idea that a Centrist is somehow a fence-sitter is an idea with which I do not agree.

Okay, define another major political philosophy!!

Oh yeah.

One of the more destructive behaviors of partisanship is its simplistic, binary, either/or thought.

I don't know if the thought processes of partisans are that simplistic, but that is sure as hell how it looks.

It's either simplistic thought or narcissistic behavior. Maybe a bit of both. Either way, it's killing us.

.

No, what is killing us is the progressive movement, going on 100 years now.

Partisanship is regarding parties, not philosophies.

Not directed at you necessarily, but it is important to force people to think about, understand and defend both liberalism and conservatism. So many posts here and elsewhere prove that few really do understand.

That is not centrist. That is Tea Party.

Tea Party is conservative. Despite the emotional tirades and spin, the Tea Party holds no position that takes away your rights.

Like I tell people all the time, my political philosophy takes nothing away from you, but the liberal philosophy takes much away from me. Such a simple and proven difference.

Lol good god dude any candidate that would do all of those things is not a centrist. That is a typical nutty republican.

Agree, not centrist, as a centrist would be forced to capitulate endlessly.

Explain "nutty" in real terms. Thanks. (bet you can't)

 

[Billy000]

It's not hard to grasp what nutty is. A far right, uncompromising republican is a nutty.

 

[Youch]

It's not hard to grasp what nutty is. A far right, uncompromising republican is a nutty.

No, the person your responded to listed a few positions, and you basically called them nutty, which is superficial. Explain. Heck, just start with one and lets go from there....

You might also add to your credibility by admitting that "far left, uncompromising democrat is a nutty" is equally true. See, this is why I avoid discussing political parties... too much "partisanship" and spin and confusion, purposeful and otherwise.

 

[Wildman]

It's not hard to grasp what nutty is. A far right, uncompromising republican is a nutty.

==========================

likewise for the leftwing scumbags of the demoncRAT party, "nutty"
does not fully describe those assholes..., traitorous commies comes close.

can anyone tell me when Harry "Whorehouse" Reid and his illegal alien mulatto buddy ever tried compromising with the right side of any fucking thing ?

Obama reportedly plotting end-run around Congress on global climate change deal

The New York Times reported that the agreement is slated to be signed at a United Nations meeting next year in Paris. However, because the U.S. Senate is unlikely to ratify any international climate treaty, Obama’s negotiators reportedly are working toward an alternative agreement – a “politically binding” deal that would serve in lieu of a bona-fide treaty.

 

[Billy000]

It's not hard to grasp what nutty is. A far right, uncompromising republican is a nutty.

No, the person your responded to listed a few positions, and you basically called them nutty, which is superficial. Explain. Heck, just start with one and lets go from there....

You might also add to your credibility by admitting that "far left, uncompromising democrat is a nutty" is equally true. See, this is why I avoid discussing political parties... too much "partisanship" and spin and confusion, purposeful and otherwise.

Lol the entire point I was making is that those were far right republican issues that were not at all centrist. The validity of them is a separate issue. What debate shall we have of them?

 

[Billy000]

It's not hard to grasp what nutty is. A far right, uncompromising republican is a nutty.

==========================

likewise for the leftwing scumbags of the demoncRAT party, "nutty"
does not fully describe those assholes..., traitorous commies comes close.

can anyone tell me when Harry "Whorehouse" Reid and his illegal alien mulatto buddy ever tried compromising with the right side of any fucking thing ?

Obama reportedly plotting end-run around Congress on global climate change deal

The New York Times reported that the agreement is slated to be signed at a United Nations meeting next year in Paris. However, because the U.S. Senate is unlikely to ratify any international climate treaty, Obama’s negotiators reportedly are working toward an alternative agreement – a “politically binding” deal that would serve in lieu of a bona-fide treaty.

Don't you ever get tired of watching Fox News?