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

[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.

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?

Are you able, unlike most libs, to differentiate between "republican" and "far right republican??" Cuz your posts don't reflect such nuance.


Yes, the fact that his positions were not centrist was obvious. I was making a larger point. You claimed, simply and stupidly, that republicanism, for the lack of a better word, is nutty. Since it was not obvious the first two times I addressed it, I am challenging you on that position.

Bring it....

 

[whitehall]

What does "centrist" mean? What sense would it make to support a party that has never won a presidential election and statistically has no chance? Wouldn't it be better to work within the party of your choice to make it more "centrist" or less centrist depending on your agenda? Don't let pie in the sky dirty tricksters from either side try to convince you to waste your vote on a 3rd party candidate.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

Right.

 

[Statistikhengst]

What does "centrist" mean? What sense would it make to support a party that has never won a presidential election and statistically has no chance? Wouldn't it be better to work within the party of your choice to make it more "centrist" or less centrist depending on your agenda? Don't let pie in the sky dirty tricksters from either side try to convince you to waste your vote on a 3rd party candidate.

No vote is a wasted vote. It's a RIGHT for people to vote for the person of their choice, irrespective of party.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

What does "centrist" mean? What sense would it make to support a party that has never won a presidential election and statistically has no chance? Wouldn't it be better to work within the party of your choice to make it more "centrist" or less centrist depending on your agenda? Don't let pie in the sky dirty tricksters from either side try to convince you to waste your vote on a 3rd party candidate.

I think most people are talking about if there were an established third party.

I think what you would actually see if there were an established third party is that the Republicans would out of necessity move left and the Democrats out of necessity would move right. Those groups aren't going to give up their votes.

 

[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?

Are you able, unlike most libs, to differentiate between "republican" and "far right republican??" Cuz your posts don't reflect such nuance.


Yes, the fact that his positions were not centrist was obvious. I was making a larger point. You claimed, simply and stupidly, that republicanism, for the lack of a better word, is nutty. Since it was not obvious the first two times I addressed it, I am challenging you on that position.

Bring it....

Easy.

Moderate republicans favor some level of regulation on the market. Far republicans do not.

Moderate republicans leave gay marriage as a states' issue.
Far republicans want a federal ban on gay marriage.

Moderate republicans understand that libertarianism is dangerous. Far right republicans, AKA libertarians, are too stupid to understand that it is dangerous.

Moderate republicans understand how stupid it is to shut down the federal government to extort the president. Far right republicans do not.

Moderate republicans support background checks on buying firearms. Far right nutties, of course, do not.

Moderate republicans understand the Iraq War was a fraudulent war. Far righties....do not.

Shall I go on?

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

That is false. Your argument is apparently based on the premise that there are only two possible solutions for most issues and/or problems, but in reality, there are usually more than just two solutions. Ergo, there is also room for more than just two major political parties.

 

[kiwiman127]

Youch-
"lease 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?"


Youch, your reply is simply your opinion, or should I say your ideology's position.
I study the issues quite well thank you. Unlike ideologues, I like to come up with my own my own positions by studying the actual facts. I do consider both sides opinions also. Therefore there I times I agree with one side or the other. There are other times when I see good ideas on both sides on one issue. I do believe in compromise too.
Do I think that both sides of the aisle is rigid? Yes. Both sides have a real problem of compromising and that's the main reason nothing gets done. A person would have to be seriously blind by their total marriage to their ideology not to see that. I believe this Congress was the least productive Congress in history if my memory serves me right. That's your example of both liberal and conservative failure, you can't ask for a better example.
What would the middle capable of, certainly much more common sense than either of our current parties that are both driven by the extremes. Extremist, don't have common sense. No they stubbornly stick to their ideological basics.
I'd rather be a person who developed my own opinion that someone who follows their ideology's position on every single thing.
This place is a perfect example of that. It's like an never ending echo chamber of different people saying the exact same thing, which is usually the talking points of the day. It's boring and sad. Too bad people are so lazy and don't invest the time and brain power to form their own opinions. That leads to being uninformed.

 

[SteadyMercury]

I study the issues quite well thank you.

Yep, it is incredibly naive (and arrogant) to believe people who don't subscribe rigidly to a certain political ideology don't understand the issues, especially when people of the opposing ideology believe the exact opposite.

It is basically believing nobody but people who cheer for your team are capable of forming wise opinions.

 

[SteadyMercury]

What does "centrist" mean? What sense would it make to support a party that has never won a presidential election and statistically has no chance? Wouldn't it be better to work within the party of your choice to make it more "centrist" or less centrist depending on your agenda? Don't let pie in the sky dirty tricksters from either side try to convince you to waste your vote on a 3rd party candidate.

To me centrist is less about party support and more about world view not conforming lock-step with a playbook from either party, especially to the extreme edges.

 

[Unkotare]

However, I would disagree that most Americans are not partisans. Blacks, for example, foolishly vote 95% democrat.

You are trying to prove some point about "most Americans" by referencing only one voting block that represents at most 13% of the population?

 

[Unkotare]

.....a third party always ends up electing another democrat, as it divides the republican base.

Ralph Nader didn't.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

bullshit.....is that what someone told ya?.....

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

As long as it disavowed any of the democrat party fascist policies and agendas like AGW, pseudo-feminism, homo rights, neosegregationist racism, etc., I'd vote for it.

 

[Rikurzhen]

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?

Centrism isn't always a virtue. The first job is to determine whether the particular policy platform is an improvement over what's offered or not.

Why is centrism not always a virtue? Compare to scenarios where centrism is the outcome.

Two siblings want to buy a anniversary gift for their parents. One sibling wants to spend $40 and the other $60 and they argue. Their uncle proposes a centrist position of $50 and they both compromise a bit and agree.

Two siblings want to buy an ice cream sundea to share. One sibling wants a strawberry sundae but the other sibling wants a horse-shit sundae. This utter repulses the other sibling. The uncle steps in and suggests a centrist position of a negotiated settlement, a horseshit-strawberry sundae. The sibling who favored the horseshit flavor gets what he wants but the one who wanted the strawberry sundae is totally disgusted and gets absolutely no benefit whatsoever from the centrist compromise.

Here's the non-colorful example. One party holds that the government has no business whatsoever in redistributing income from one individual to another. Zilch. There is no meeting in middle ground with an opponent who believes that the government should be aggressive in redistributing income to equalize outcomes. Any meeting in the middle involves forcing the individualists to eat a strawberry-horseshit sundae.

Centrism in the above case is not a virtue.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

so a Democrat is against all those things?...

 

[Statistikhengst]

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?

Centrism isn't always a virtue. The first job is to determine whether the particular policy platform is an improvement over what's offered or not.

Why is centrism not always a virtue? Compare to scenarios where centrism is the outcome.

Two siblings want to buy a anniversary gift for their parents. One sibling wants to spend $40 and the other $60 and they argue. Their uncle proposes a centrist position of $50 and they both compromise a bit and agree.

Two siblings want to buy an ice cream sundea to share. One sibling wants a strawberry sundae but the other sibling wants a horse-shit sundae. This utter repulses the other sibling. The uncle steps in and suggests a centrist position of a negotiated settlement, a horseshit-strawberry sundae. The sibling who favored the horseshit flavor gets what he wants but the one who wanted the strawberry sundae is totally disgusted and gets absolutely no benefit whatsoever from the centrist compromise.

Here's the non-colorful example. One party holds that the government has no business whatsoever in redistributing income from one individual to another. Zilch. There is no meeting in middle ground with an opponent who believes that the government should be aggressive in redistributing income to equalize outcomes. Any meeting in the middle involves forcing the individualists to eat a strawberry-horseshit sundae.

Centrism in the above case is not a virtue.

You are committing the classic mistake of thinking that Centrism always means compromise, splitting the baby right now the middle.

That is incorrect.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

most people in the middle have views that can go either way depending on the topic......unlike the rigid "party" people who usually go with their party.....even if they are against it...

 

[Harry Dresden]

What does "centrist" mean? What sense would it make to support a party that has never won a presidential election and statistically has no chance? Wouldn't it be better to work within the party of your choice to make it more "centrist" or less centrist depending on your agenda? Don't let pie in the sky dirty tricksters from either side try to convince you to waste your vote on a 3rd party candidate.

in the meantime you are voting for the same old shit......thats wasting your vote.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

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

so is the far left uncompromising Democrat.....the 2 sides of the same coin....