a new party

[HappyJoy]

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days. Not that you can't, I just genuinely don't know what that means anymore.

I'd say someone who realizes that we need both tax increases and budget cuts; that we need to raise the retirement age for Social Security; that realizes that we need to de-couple health insurance and employers; that we need to come to terms with the shortcomings of the geniuses that founded our nation (both personal and civic-wise) and admit that our constitution is not built for 2020. That we need to take care of anyone under 18 and over 60 medically and give the youth a chance and the elders a dignified end.

That'd be a start to a platform I think most Americans would agree with.

I like that. Great , well thought out post. Who could disagree?

everyone....

Republicans.

Obama proposed the rise in SS retirement age. Pelosi screamed bloody murder.

I'm not really for raising the retirement age either, but I'm not going to call you un-American or a traitor to the country for it. It's a debate wholly within the Democratic party.

And it shouldn't be. The science has people living to be older, more active, and incidentally...they want to work and often need the higher income. IT should guide the decision; not what life expectancy was in 1934.

Not everyone is living longer, the more well off someone is who doesn't depend as much on SS live longer, by about 14 years than poorer Americans.

This makes the argument for one health care for all! Of course those who want more can pay for it.

Medicare Advantage is a good example. As one of the major Insurance companies advised everyone it took 3 years for them to adjust to the ACA.

Now they would be able to afford more benefits. They have done that every year. In most cases with zero costs. The ACA should have been amended 10 years ago to fix the problems as most programs do.

The ACA helped fill gaps for pre existing conditions and those who simply have no other options for healthcare while also helping to define what exactly health insurance should cover so people are paying premiums for not much more than a band aid.

I'm not really sure ultimately what the solution for health insurance is in this country but it's most likely going to involve public and private entities.

Tying it to your employer is something I don't see continuing for much longer.

I agree, however it's a huge step to separate insurance from employment.

Yes. But it doesn't seem logical or sustainable.

Seems tough to me. Unless the government totally pays for everyone’s healthcare, it won’t happen. If the government did that, then there is no point in having insurance or private hospitals or doctors. I don’t think big insurance and pharma are going to go for that. That is the real issue. The big money controls Congress.

For starters I wouldn't think of private medical practices as the same as insurance. They are two different things. Also saying "government totally pays for everyone's healthcare" is not really how it works. Most people pay for their own healthcare. Either through premiums or if a government plan through some sort of tax.

do you have any ideas for people that dont want the governemnt involved in their private healthcare???

Die young.

or are all you solutions fascist in nature??

Weird.

I said thats not fascist in nature,,

Nothing stated in this thread about healthcare is fascist. Maybe try being serious.

the very nature of forcing me into a system I dont want is facsist,, and also forcing me to pay more so other people pay less is also facsist,,

You're already paying into at least one government healthcare plan not to mention social security. So, give it a rest.

that is forced on me against my will,, in other words its facsist,,

Then according to you we're living in a fascist country.

This thread is mainly about moderates and where they may find the most room in a political party for their beliefs. Republican, Democrat or a moderate party. You're making it really easy to scratch off the first option.

its getting that way with the more control dems and some repubes have,,,

I AM ANTIFA!!!

You're going to hate the future then.

its common that people hate facsist times,,,

Maybe learn to spell it first, you've spelled it wrong 3 fucking times now.

OMG!! did I,,

do you feel insulted that I misspelled what you are???

No, I just figured if you're going to run around and call normal American life fascist you should at least spare as much of your credibility as possible and prove you know how to spell it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

democrats are moving too far left

republicans have gone too far right

i find myself appreciating rinos and dinos more these days

we need a third party for the majority of us who are moderates

You know, if Trump had not been an awful person who abused children and picked fights with women who weren't even political, and if he'd actually taken responsibility for a responsible response to covid …. he'd have been reelected. Jus sayin.

It was never about any of that.

Trump is an outsider. He shit on too many gravy trains. BOTH establishment duopoly parties wanted him out of the way to keep that gravy train running. This is all about corruption at its core.

 

[HappyJoy]

I don’t go to big corporate stores, I do admit finding local mom and pops is getting tougher to find. I look for US products as much as possible and always ask stores if they have a product made in the USA. I’m not a China fan, they have lied to us many times over, lead in toys, drywall that was moldy, lying about the coronavirus. They don’t care about Americans, and will kill for the almighty dollar as they keep proving.

Reality check. Not all Americans do what you want me to believe you do.

 

[MaryAnne11]

I think to become a more perfect union. There are always problems to fix.

And what does that mean? A more perfect union to me is not spending us into oblivion. People are wanting to go trillions more in debt, we don’t have the money and no means to pay. You can tax every American 100% of our income and still not reduce the debt. We are on the edge of disaster. We need to take a hard look at our spending and cut it, drastically.

Trump was spending us into oblivion while the economy was doing fine. Glad you were concerned about it after all.

The rest of your post isn't worth bothering with since nobody is being taxed at 100% nor is anyo.....ya' know fuck it, it's not even worth finishing the sentence.

You asked what 'moving forward' was and I gave you an answer, building a more perfect union. It's all gooey in founding father glory so you should pretend to like it.

Who is going to force entertainers worth 10s of millions to join the working class in this perfect Union?
The average person working on a movie makes about 15K/year.

You continue to go off into the weeds. We need some fairness in both wages and taxes.

I think he thinks he's debating Stalin or whatever.

Just telling the truth about part of the Liberal Elite.
They don’t give a shit about you.

I see. So according to your analogy (I don't know what else to call it) I am an entertainer "worth 10s of millions" and the left doesn't give a shit about me because they are going to force me to only make $15k?

It's a weird fucking world, isn't it?

You think a celebrity is going to pay you an equal salary or stay in the US if they have to pay an exorbitant amount of taxes.

Oh, so I'm not the celebrity now and the problem is you think liberal policies are going to push specifically celebrities to leave the country?

Seriously, this is a dumb argument.

So what do you think of the dozens of celebrities who promised they would leave the US in 2016?

I don't?

I thought you said they would leave if Biden was elected and the wage matching down to $15k or whatever.

Stop being stupid.
Over 100 celebrities said they would leave the US if Trump won in 2016.
As usual, they lied.
Of course you know this but you’ll lie that you don’t.

I don’t care, do you?

Simply because the Liberals here have a habit of using these celebrities to display that cool celebrities hate Trump.
Anyone who constantly breaks an oath is not cool.

I do?

Are you not a LibBot?
You love everybody who thinks exactly the same way you do.
I certainly don't see any Liberals here, or anywhere else for that matter, differing on any issue.
You come across as robots and then call those who disagree with you on any issue a TrumpBot.

Gee, liberals like conservatives tend to have a core value of beliefs. For example liberals believe in a strong social safety net and conservatives apparently don't believe in science and the will of the people. Trump isn't an ideology, he is a fraud.

Saying Conservatives don't believe in science is a fallacy.
Conservatives want the market to deal with issues and the market has done a marvelous job of phasing out mechanical processes in favor of electronic processes in gathering materials , processing materials and cleaning up.
It is a wonderful coincidence that the work that goes into building a civilization such as ours is less expensive with the less ecologically intrusive processes than the more ecologically intrusive processes.

How does the market handle polluting? They've been forced to clean it up. Anyway, believe COVID isn't serious, don't believe in wearing masks and climate change isn't happening regardless of what science says. Give it a rest, you're trying way too hard to be obnoxious.

How does the market control polluting? If the public is against a company who pollutes, they will refrain from purchasing their products. That is how the market controls everything....from polluting, to child labor, to poor quality of product, to overpriced product, etc

How is the market controlling polluting? It isn't. Most people don't care. You're concerned about offshoring jobs, right? But I bet you shop at WalMart, a company that facilitates moving manufacturing to China. What is your dumb fat ass doing about it? But I bet you want government to force companies to make shit here, right?

The Wal-Mart effect: Its Chinese imports have displaced nearly 200,000 U.S. jobs

China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) was supposed to improve the U.S. trade deficit with China and create good jobs in the United States. But those promises have gone unfulfilled: the total U.S. trade deficit with China reached $235 billion in 2006. Between 2001 and 2006, this...

www.epi.org

Now...if the public buys a product from a polluter, than they are more interested in their own wants than they are in the environment. If they buy a prodcut from a user of child labor? They care about their own wants than the safety of children.
That is how the free market works.

Where was your smart phone made and what are the alternatives if you know..you cared about it?

I refuse to shop at Walmart and shop local. I look for products that are American made, and if I can’t find the item, I ask a manager if they could find American made products, most are happy to do so.

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days. Not that you can't, I just genuinely don't know what that means anymore.

I'd say someone who realizes that we need both tax increases and budget cuts; that we need to raise the retirement age for Social Security; that realizes that we need to de-couple health insurance and employers; that we need to come to terms with the shortcomings of the geniuses that founded our nation (both personal and civic-wise) and admit that our constitution is not built for 2020. That we need to take care of anyone under 18 and over 60 medically and give the youth a chance and the elders a dignified end.

That'd be a start to a platform I think most Americans would agree with.

I like that. Great , well thought out post. Who could disagree?

everyone....

Republicans.

Obama proposed the rise in SS retirement age. Pelosi screamed bloody murder.

I'm not really for raising the retirement age either, but I'm not going to call you un-American or a traitor to the country for it. It's a debate wholly within the Democratic party.

And it shouldn't be. The science has people living to be older, more active, and incidentally...they want to work and often need the higher income. IT should guide the decision; not what life expectancy was in 1934.

Not everyone is living longer, the more well off someone is who doesn't depend as much on SS live longer, by about 14 years than poorer Americans.

This makes the argument for one health care for all! Of course those who want more can pay for it.

Medicare Advantage is a good example. As one of the major Insurance companies advised everyone it took 3 years for them to adjust to the ACA.

Now they would be able to afford more benefits. They have done that every year. In most cases with zero costs. The ACA should have been amended 10 years ago to fix the problems as most programs do.

The ACA helped fill gaps for pre existing conditions and those who simply have no other options for healthcare while also helping to define what exactly health insurance should cover so people are paying premiums for not much more than a band aid.

I'm not really sure ultimately what the solution for health insurance is in this country but it's most likely going to involve public and private entities.

Tying it to your employer is something I don't see continuing for much longer.

I agree, however it's a huge step to separate insurance from employment.

Yes. But it doesn't seem logical or sustainable.

Seems tough to me. Unless the government totally pays for everyone’s healthcare, it won’t happen. If the government did that, then there is no point in having insurance or private hospitals or doctors. I don’t think big insurance and pharma are going to go for that. That is the real issue. The big money controls Congress.

For starters I wouldn't think of private medical practices as the same as insurance. They are two different things. Also saying "government totally pays for everyone's healthcare" is not really how it works. Most people pay for their own healthcare. Either through premiums or if a government plan through some sort of tax.

do you have any ideas for people that dont want the governemnt involved in their private healthcare???

Die young.

or are all you solutions fascist in nature??

Weird.

I said thats not fascist in nature,,

Nothing stated in this thread about healthcare is fascist. Maybe try being serious.

the very nature of forcing me into a system I dont want is facsist,, and also forcing me to pay more so other people pay less is also facsist,,

You're already paying into at least one government healthcare plan not to mention social security. So, give it a rest.

that is forced on me against my will,, in other words its facsist,,

Then according to you we're living in a fascist country.

This thread is mainly about moderates and where they may find the most room in a political party for their beliefs. Republican, Democrat or a moderate party. You're making it really easy to scratch off the first option.

And you have scratched off the second option.

I'm pretty confident most moderates don't feel Social Security and Medicare is fascism. Just a hunch.

First off your reading comprehension sucks, because I never said Social Security and Medicare is fascism, maybe you should try to understand what you read instead of mindless knee jerk responses.

Many do feel that taking away employer healthcare is fascism.
There is a place in America for both employer insurance and getting your own. Just because one has employer paid health insurance and likes it doesn’t mean he doesn’t think about his own demographic, it means he sees a bigger picture that doesn’t rely on the government to fix every problem but sees multiple solutions.

A one solution fix is fascism and you still ruled out your second option.

So give us an idea how to fix health care . What do you suggest?

In another post I explained how Insurance companies saying they had adjusted to the ACA and were able to provide more benefits each year.

You stop the silly lawsuits, that is driving liability insurance costs through the roof, limiting good doctors from treating people. We are seeing more and more doctors in big clinics because they could no longer afford the liability insurance. States could allow insurance companies to cross state lines and make them more competitive. States could then offer subsidized insurance and if they want to make it income based, then do it. States then need to limit lobbying in their states. Encourage more independent doctors by offering incentives for them to leave big medicine. The states could demand insurance companies to standardize their coding for easier and quicker processes.

It’s really a state issue and the best solutions are found at state levels where better fits for the people can happen.

Sure you don't shop at WalMart or Target

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days. Not that you can't, I just genuinely don't know what that means anymore.

I'd say someone who realizes that we need both tax increases and budget cuts; that we need to raise the retirement age for Social Security; that realizes that we need to de-couple health insurance and employers; that we need to come to terms with the shortcomings of the geniuses that founded our nation (both personal and civic-wise) and admit that our constitution is not built for 2020. That we need to take care of anyone under 18 and over 60 medically and give the youth a chance and the elders a dignified end.

That'd be a start to a platform I think most Americans would agree with.

I like that. Great , well thought out post. Who could disagree?

everyone....

Republicans.

Obama proposed the rise in SS retirement age. Pelosi screamed bloody murder.

I'm not really for raising the retirement age either, but I'm not going to call you un-American or a traitor to the country for it. It's a debate wholly within the Democratic party.

And it shouldn't be. The science has people living to be older, more active, and incidentally...they want to work and often need the higher income. IT should guide the decision; not what life expectancy was in 1934.

Not everyone is living longer, the more well off someone is who doesn't depend as much on SS live longer, by about 14 years than poorer Americans.

This makes the argument for one health care for all! Of course those who want more can pay for it.

Medicare Advantage is a good example. As one of the major Insurance companies advised everyone it took 3 years for them to adjust to the ACA.

Now they would be able to afford more benefits. They have done that every year. In most cases with zero costs. The ACA should have been amended 10 years ago to fix the problems as most programs do.

The ACA helped fill gaps for pre existing conditions and those who simply have no other options for healthcare while also helping to define what exactly health insurance should cover so people are paying premiums for not much more than a band aid.

I'm not really sure ultimately what the solution for health insurance is in this country but it's most likely going to involve public and private entities.

Tying it to your employer is something I don't see continuing for much longer.

I agree, however it's a huge step to separate insurance from employment.

Yes. But it doesn't seem logical or sustainable.

Seems tough to me. Unless the government totally pays for everyone’s healthcare, it won’t happen. If the government did that, then there is no point in having insurance or private hospitals or doctors. I don’t think big insurance and pharma are going to go for that. That is the real issue. The big money controls Congress.

For starters I wouldn't think of private medical practices as the same as insurance. They are two different things. Also saying "government totally pays for everyone's healthcare" is not really how it works. Most people pay for their own healthcare. Either through premiums or if a government plan through some sort of tax.

do you have any ideas for people that dont want the governemnt involved in their private healthcare???

Die young.

or are all you solutions fascist in nature??

Weird.

I said thats not fascist in nature,,

Nothing stated in this thread about healthcare is fascist. Maybe try being serious.

the very nature of forcing me into a system I dont want is facsist,, and also forcing me to pay more so other people pay less is also facsist,,

You're already paying into at least one government healthcare plan not to mention social security. So, give it a rest.

that is forced on me against my will,, in other words its facsist,,

Then according to you we're living in a fascist country.

This thread is mainly about moderates and where they may find the most room in a political party for their beliefs. Republican, Democrat or a moderate party. You're making it really easy to scratch off the first option.

And you have scratched off the second option.

I'm pretty confident most moderates don't feel Social Security and Medicare is fascism. Just a hunch.

First off your reading comprehension sucks, because I never said Social Security and Medicare is fascism, maybe you should try to understand what you read instead of mindless knee jerk responses.

Many do feel that taking away employer healthcare is fascism.
There is a place in America for both employer insurance and getting your own. Just because one has employer paid health insurance and likes it doesn’t mean he doesn’t think about his own demographic, it means he sees a bigger picture that doesn’t rely on the government to fix every problem but sees multiple solutions.

A one solution fix is fascism and you still ruled out your second option.

So give us an idea how to fix health care . What do you suggest?

In another post I explained how Insurance companies saying they had adjusted to the ACA and were able to provide more benefits each year.

the first thing to do is get the feds out of it and let the states do what is their legal authority to do,,

its easy to trace the increase in medical care to when the feds started to get involved,,

Then what? Your non-answer isn't cutting it.

then I would lower both corp tax and personal tax and bring jobs back so more people can work and pay their own ways in life,,

So, both have already been lowered what has that done for healthcare so far? Not a thing.

I don’t go to big corporate stores, I do admit finding local mom and pops is getting tougher to find. I look for US products as much as possible and always ask stores if they have a product made in the USA. I’m not a China fan, they have lied to us many times over, lead in toys, drywall that was moldy, lying about the coronavirus. They don’t care about Americans, and will kill for the almighty dollar as they keep proving.

If I can buy American madeI do. We need to put more emphasis on building American companies.

The irony of WALMART is that Sam Walton actually prided himself on American products. The signs were up all over his stores at the beginning. Then others took over and forced companies out. Some of that is now changing and after being shamed they increased wages.

 

[progressive hunter]

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days. Not that you can't, I just genuinely don't know what that means anymore.

I'd say someone who realizes that we need both tax increases and budget cuts; that we need to raise the retirement age for Social Security; that realizes that we need to de-couple health insurance and employers; that we need to come to terms with the shortcomings of the geniuses that founded our nation (both personal and civic-wise) and admit that our constitution is not built for 2020. That we need to take care of anyone under 18 and over 60 medically and give the youth a chance and the elders a dignified end.

That'd be a start to a platform I think most Americans would agree with.

I like that. Great , well thought out post. Who could disagree?

everyone....

Republicans.

Obama proposed the rise in SS retirement age. Pelosi screamed bloody murder.

I'm not really for raising the retirement age either, but I'm not going to call you un-American or a traitor to the country for it. It's a debate wholly within the Democratic party.

And it shouldn't be. The science has people living to be older, more active, and incidentally...they want to work and often need the higher income. IT should guide the decision; not what life expectancy was in 1934.

Not everyone is living longer, the more well off someone is who doesn't depend as much on SS live longer, by about 14 years than poorer Americans.

This makes the argument for one health care for all! Of course those who want more can pay for it.

Medicare Advantage is a good example. As one of the major Insurance companies advised everyone it took 3 years for them to adjust to the ACA.

Now they would be able to afford more benefits. They have done that every year. In most cases with zero costs. The ACA should have been amended 10 years ago to fix the problems as most programs do.

The ACA helped fill gaps for pre existing conditions and those who simply have no other options for healthcare while also helping to define what exactly health insurance should cover so people are paying premiums for not much more than a band aid.

I'm not really sure ultimately what the solution for health insurance is in this country but it's most likely going to involve public and private entities.

Tying it to your employer is something I don't see continuing for much longer.

I agree, however it's a huge step to separate insurance from employment.

Yes. But it doesn't seem logical or sustainable.

Seems tough to me. Unless the government totally pays for everyone’s healthcare, it won’t happen. If the government did that, then there is no point in having insurance or private hospitals or doctors. I don’t think big insurance and pharma are going to go for that. That is the real issue. The big money controls Congress.

For starters I wouldn't think of private medical practices as the same as insurance. They are two different things. Also saying "government totally pays for everyone's healthcare" is not really how it works. Most people pay for their own healthcare. Either through premiums or if a government plan through some sort of tax.

do you have any ideas for people that dont want the governemnt involved in their private healthcare???

Die young.

or are all you solutions fascist in nature??

Weird.

I said thats not fascist in nature,,

Nothing stated in this thread about healthcare is fascist. Maybe try being serious.

the very nature of forcing me into a system I dont want is facsist,, and also forcing me to pay more so other people pay less is also facsist,,

You're already paying into at least one government healthcare plan not to mention social security. So, give it a rest.

that is forced on me against my will,, in other words its facsist,,

Then according to you we're living in a fascist country.

This thread is mainly about moderates and where they may find the most room in a political party for their beliefs. Republican, Democrat or a moderate party. You're making it really easy to scratch off the first option.

its getting that way with the more control dems and some repubes have,,,

I AM ANTIFA!!!

You're going to hate the future then.

its common that people hate facsist times,,,

Maybe learn to spell it first, you've spelled it wrong 3 fucking times now.

OMG!! did I,,

do you feel insulted that I misspelled what you are???

No, I just figured if you're going to run around and call normal American life fascist you should at least spare as much of your credibility as possible and prove you know how to spell it.

fascist arent normal american people,, and thats what you are if you want to force government control over healthcare of people that dont want it,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

I think to become a more perfect union. There are always problems to fix.

And what does that mean? A more perfect union to me is not spending us into oblivion. People are wanting to go trillions more in debt, we don’t have the money and no means to pay. You can tax every American 100% of our income and still not reduce the debt. We are on the edge of disaster. We need to take a hard look at our spending and cut it, drastically.

Trump was spending us into oblivion while the economy was doing fine. Glad you were concerned about it after all.

The rest of your post isn't worth bothering with since nobody is being taxed at 100% nor is anyo.....ya' know fuck it, it's not even worth finishing the sentence.

You asked what 'moving forward' was and I gave you an answer, building a more perfect union. It's all gooey in founding father glory so you should pretend to like it.

Who is going to force entertainers worth 10s of millions to join the working class in this perfect Union?
The average person working on a movie makes about 15K/year.

You continue to go off into the weeds. We need some fairness in both wages and taxes.

I think he thinks he's debating Stalin or whatever.

Just telling the truth about part of the Liberal Elite.
They don’t give a shit about you.

I see. So according to your analogy (I don't know what else to call it) I am an entertainer "worth 10s of millions" and the left doesn't give a shit about me because they are going to force me to only make $15k?

It's a weird fucking world, isn't it?

You think a celebrity is going to pay you an equal salary or stay in the US if they have to pay an exorbitant amount of taxes.

Oh, so I'm not the celebrity now and the problem is you think liberal policies are going to push specifically celebrities to leave the country?

Seriously, this is a dumb argument.

So what do you think of the dozens of celebrities who promised they would leave the US in 2016?

I don't?

I thought you said they would leave if Biden was elected and the wage matching down to $15k or whatever.

Stop being stupid.
Over 100 celebrities said they would leave the US if Trump won in 2016.
As usual, they lied.
Of course you know this but you’ll lie that you don’t.

I don’t care, do you?

Simply because the Liberals here have a habit of using these celebrities to display that cool celebrities hate Trump.
Anyone who constantly breaks an oath is not cool.

I do?

Are you not a LibBot?
You love everybody who thinks exactly the same way you do.
I certainly don't see any Liberals here, or anywhere else for that matter, differing on any issue.
You come across as robots and then call those who disagree with you on any issue a TrumpBot.

Gee, liberals like conservatives tend to have a core value of beliefs. For example liberals believe in a strong social safety net and conservatives apparently don't believe in science and the will of the people. Trump isn't an ideology, he is a fraud.

Saying Conservatives don't believe in science is a fallacy.
Conservatives want the market to deal with issues and the market has done a marvelous job of phasing out mechanical processes in favor of electronic processes in gathering materials , processing materials and cleaning up.
It is a wonderful coincidence that the work that goes into building a civilization such as ours is less expensive with the less ecologically intrusive processes than the more ecologically intrusive processes.

How does the market handle polluting? They've been forced to clean it up. Anyway, believe COVID isn't serious, don't believe in wearing masks and climate change isn't happening regardless of what science says. Give it a rest, you're trying way too hard to be obnoxious.

How does the market control polluting? If the public is against a company who pollutes, they will refrain from purchasing their products. That is how the market controls everything....from polluting, to child labor, to poor quality of product, to overpriced product, etc

How is the market controlling polluting? It isn't. Most people don't care. You're concerned about offshoring jobs, right? But I bet you shop at WalMart, a company that facilitates moving manufacturing to China. What is your dumb fat ass doing about it? But I bet you want government to force companies to make shit here, right?

The Wal-Mart effect: Its Chinese imports have displaced nearly 200,000 U.S. jobs

China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) was supposed to improve the U.S. trade deficit with China and create good jobs in the United States. But those promises have gone unfulfilled: the total U.S. trade deficit with China reached $235 billion in 2006. Between 2001 and 2006, this...

www.epi.org

Now...if the public buys a product from a polluter, than they are more interested in their own wants than they are in the environment. If they buy a prodcut from a user of child labor? They care about their own wants than the safety of children.
That is how the free market works.

Where was your smart phone made and what are the alternatives if you know..you cared about it?

I refuse to shop at Walmart and shop local. I look for products that are American made, and if I can’t find the item, I ask a manager if they could find American made products, most are happy to do so.

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days. Not that you can't, I just genuinely don't know what that means anymore.

I'd say someone who realizes that we need both tax increases and budget cuts; that we need to raise the retirement age for Social Security; that realizes that we need to de-couple health insurance and employers; that we need to come to terms with the shortcomings of the geniuses that founded our nation (both personal and civic-wise) and admit that our constitution is not built for 2020. That we need to take care of anyone under 18 and over 60 medically and give the youth a chance and the elders a dignified end.

That'd be a start to a platform I think most Americans would agree with.

I like that. Great , well thought out post. Who could disagree?

everyone....

Republicans.

Obama proposed the rise in SS retirement age. Pelosi screamed bloody murder.

I'm not really for raising the retirement age either, but I'm not going to call you un-American or a traitor to the country for it. It's a debate wholly within the Democratic party.

And it shouldn't be. The science has people living to be older, more active, and incidentally...they want to work and often need the higher income. IT should guide the decision; not what life expectancy was in 1934.

Not everyone is living longer, the more well off someone is who doesn't depend as much on SS live longer, by about 14 years than poorer Americans.

This makes the argument for one health care for all! Of course those who want more can pay for it.

Medicare Advantage is a good example. As one of the major Insurance companies advised everyone it took 3 years for them to adjust to the ACA.

Now they would be able to afford more benefits. They have done that every year. In most cases with zero costs. The ACA should have been amended 10 years ago to fix the problems as most programs do.

The ACA helped fill gaps for pre existing conditions and those who simply have no other options for healthcare while also helping to define what exactly health insurance should cover so people are paying premiums for not much more than a band aid.

I'm not really sure ultimately what the solution for health insurance is in this country but it's most likely going to involve public and private entities.

Tying it to your employer is something I don't see continuing for much longer.

I agree, however it's a huge step to separate insurance from employment.

Yes. But it doesn't seem logical or sustainable.

Seems tough to me. Unless the government totally pays for everyone’s healthcare, it won’t happen. If the government did that, then there is no point in having insurance or private hospitals or doctors. I don’t think big insurance and pharma are going to go for that. That is the real issue. The big money controls Congress.

For starters I wouldn't think of private medical practices as the same as insurance. They are two different things. Also saying "government totally pays for everyone's healthcare" is not really how it works. Most people pay for their own healthcare. Either through premiums or if a government plan through some sort of tax.

do you have any ideas for people that dont want the governemnt involved in their private healthcare???

Die young.

or are all you solutions fascist in nature??

Weird.

I said thats not fascist in nature,,

Nothing stated in this thread about healthcare is fascist. Maybe try being serious.

the very nature of forcing me into a system I dont want is facsist,, and also forcing me to pay more so other people pay less is also facsist,,

You're already paying into at least one government healthcare plan not to mention social security. So, give it a rest.

that is forced on me against my will,, in other words its facsist,,

Then according to you we're living in a fascist country.

This thread is mainly about moderates and where they may find the most room in a political party for their beliefs. Republican, Democrat or a moderate party. You're making it really easy to scratch off the first option.

And you have scratched off the second option.

I'm pretty confident most moderates don't feel Social Security and Medicare is fascism. Just a hunch.

First off your reading comprehension sucks, because I never said Social Security and Medicare is fascism, maybe you should try to understand what you read instead of mindless knee jerk responses.

Many do feel that taking away employer healthcare is fascism.
There is a place in America for both employer insurance and getting your own. Just because one has employer paid health insurance and likes it doesn’t mean he doesn’t think about his own demographic, it means he sees a bigger picture that doesn’t rely on the government to fix every problem but sees multiple solutions.

A one solution fix is fascism and you still ruled out your second option.

So give us an idea how to fix health care . What do you suggest?

In another post I explained how Insurance companies saying they had adjusted to the ACA and were able to provide more benefits each year.

You stop the silly lawsuits, that is driving liability insurance costs through the roof, limiting good doctors from treating people. We are seeing more and more doctors in big clinics because they could no longer afford the liability insurance. States could allow insurance companies to cross state lines and make them more competitive. States could then offer subsidized insurance and if they want to make it income based, then do it. States then need to limit lobbying in their states. Encourage more independent doctors by offering incentives for them to leave big medicine. The states could demand insurance companies to standardize their coding for easier and quicker processes.

It’s really a state issue and the best solutions are found at state levels where better fits for the people can happen.

Sure you don't shop at WalMart or Target

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days. Not that you can't, I just genuinely don't know what that means anymore.

I'd say someone who realizes that we need both tax increases and budget cuts; that we need to raise the retirement age for Social Security; that realizes that we need to de-couple health insurance and employers; that we need to come to terms with the shortcomings of the geniuses that founded our nation (both personal and civic-wise) and admit that our constitution is not built for 2020. That we need to take care of anyone under 18 and over 60 medically and give the youth a chance and the elders a dignified end.

That'd be a start to a platform I think most Americans would agree with.

I like that. Great , well thought out post. Who could disagree?

everyone....

Republicans.

Obama proposed the rise in SS retirement age. Pelosi screamed bloody murder.

I'm not really for raising the retirement age either, but I'm not going to call you un-American or a traitor to the country for it. It's a debate wholly within the Democratic party.

And it shouldn't be. The science has people living to be older, more active, and incidentally...they want to work and often need the higher income. IT should guide the decision; not what life expectancy was in 1934.

Not everyone is living longer, the more well off someone is who doesn't depend as much on SS live longer, by about 14 years than poorer Americans.

This makes the argument for one health care for all! Of course those who want more can pay for it.

Medicare Advantage is a good example. As one of the major Insurance companies advised everyone it took 3 years for them to adjust to the ACA.

Now they would be able to afford more benefits. They have done that every year. In most cases with zero costs. The ACA should have been amended 10 years ago to fix the problems as most programs do.

The ACA helped fill gaps for pre existing conditions and those who simply have no other options for healthcare while also helping to define what exactly health insurance should cover so people are paying premiums for not much more than a band aid.

I'm not really sure ultimately what the solution for health insurance is in this country but it's most likely going to involve public and private entities.

Tying it to your employer is something I don't see continuing for much longer.

I agree, however it's a huge step to separate insurance from employment.

Yes. But it doesn't seem logical or sustainable.

Seems tough to me. Unless the government totally pays for everyone’s healthcare, it won’t happen. If the government did that, then there is no point in having insurance or private hospitals or doctors. I don’t think big insurance and pharma are going to go for that. That is the real issue. The big money controls Congress.

For starters I wouldn't think of private medical practices as the same as insurance. They are two different things. Also saying "government totally pays for everyone's healthcare" is not really how it works. Most people pay for their own healthcare. Either through premiums or if a government plan through some sort of tax.

do you have any ideas for people that dont want the governemnt involved in their private healthcare???

Die young.

or are all you solutions fascist in nature??

Weird.

I said thats not fascist in nature,,

Nothing stated in this thread about healthcare is fascist. Maybe try being serious.

the very nature of forcing me into a system I dont want is facsist,, and also forcing me to pay more so other people pay less is also facsist,,

You're already paying into at least one government healthcare plan not to mention social security. So, give it a rest.

that is forced on me against my will,, in other words its facsist,,

Then according to you we're living in a fascist country.

This thread is mainly about moderates and where they may find the most room in a political party for their beliefs. Republican, Democrat or a moderate party. You're making it really easy to scratch off the first option.

And you have scratched off the second option.

I'm pretty confident most moderates don't feel Social Security and Medicare is fascism. Just a hunch.

First off your reading comprehension sucks, because I never said Social Security and Medicare is fascism, maybe you should try to understand what you read instead of mindless knee jerk responses.

Many do feel that taking away employer healthcare is fascism.
There is a place in America for both employer insurance and getting your own. Just because one has employer paid health insurance and likes it doesn’t mean he doesn’t think about his own demographic, it means he sees a bigger picture that doesn’t rely on the government to fix every problem but sees multiple solutions.

A one solution fix is fascism and you still ruled out your second option.

So give us an idea how to fix health care . What do you suggest?

In another post I explained how Insurance companies saying they had adjusted to the ACA and were able to provide more benefits each year.

the first thing to do is get the feds out of it and let the states do what is their legal authority to do,,

its easy to trace the increase in medical care to when the feds started to get involved,,

Then what? Your non-answer isn't cutting it.

then I would lower both corp tax and personal tax and bring jobs back so more people can work and pay their own ways in life,,

So, both have already been lowered what has that done for healthcare so far? Not a thing.

I don’t go to big corporate stores, I do admit finding local mom and pops is getting tougher to find. I look for US products as much as possible and always ask stores if they have a product made in the USA. I’m not a China fan, they have lied to us many times over, lead in toys, drywall that was moldy, lying about the coronavirus. They don’t care about Americans, and will kill for the almighty dollar as they keep proving.

If I can buy American madeI do. We need to put more emphasis on building American companies.

The irony of WALMART is that Sam Walton actually prided himself on American products. The signs were up all over his stores at the beginning. Then others took over and forced companies out. Some of that is now changing and after being shamed they increased wages.

we cant build american companies when our taxs are the highest in the world and companies move to china as per the democrat plan,,

 

[Papageorgio]

I don’t go to big corporate stores, I do admit finding local mom and pops is getting tougher to find. I look for US products as much as possible and always ask stores if they have a product made in the USA. I’m not a China fan, they have lied to us many times over, lead in toys, drywall that was moldy, lying about the coronavirus. They don’t care about Americans, and will kill for the almighty dollar as they keep proving.

Reality check. Not all Americans do what you want me to believe you do.

Reality check, I don’t care what you believe.

 

[HappyJoy]

I think to become a more perfect union. There are always problems to fix.

And what does that mean? A more perfect union to me is not spending us into oblivion. People are wanting to go trillions more in debt, we don’t have the money and no means to pay. You can tax every American 100% of our income and still not reduce the debt. We are on the edge of disaster. We need to take a hard look at our spending and cut it, drastically.

Trump was spending us into oblivion while the economy was doing fine. Glad you were concerned about it after all.

The rest of your post isn't worth bothering with since nobody is being taxed at 100% nor is anyo.....ya' know fuck it, it's not even worth finishing the sentence.

You asked what 'moving forward' was and I gave you an answer, building a more perfect union. It's all gooey in founding father glory so you should pretend to like it.

Who is going to force entertainers worth 10s of millions to join the working class in this perfect Union?
The average person working on a movie makes about 15K/year.

You continue to go off into the weeds. We need some fairness in both wages and taxes.

I think he thinks he's debating Stalin or whatever.

Just telling the truth about part of the Liberal Elite.
They don’t give a shit about you.

I see. So according to your analogy (I don't know what else to call it) I am an entertainer "worth 10s of millions" and the left doesn't give a shit about me because they are going to force me to only make $15k?

It's a weird fucking world, isn't it?

You think a celebrity is going to pay you an equal salary or stay in the US if they have to pay an exorbitant amount of taxes.

Oh, so I'm not the celebrity now and the problem is you think liberal policies are going to push specifically celebrities to leave the country?

Seriously, this is a dumb argument.

So what do you think of the dozens of celebrities who promised they would leave the US in 2016?

I don't?

I thought you said they would leave if Biden was elected and the wage matching down to $15k or whatever.

Stop being stupid.
Over 100 celebrities said they would leave the US if Trump won in 2016.
As usual, they lied.
Of course you know this but you’ll lie that you don’t.

I don’t care, do you?

Simply because the Liberals here have a habit of using these celebrities to display that cool celebrities hate Trump.
Anyone who constantly breaks an oath is not cool.

I do?

Are you not a LibBot?
You love everybody who thinks exactly the same way you do.
I certainly don't see any Liberals here, or anywhere else for that matter, differing on any issue.
You come across as robots and then call those who disagree with you on any issue a TrumpBot.

Gee, liberals like conservatives tend to have a core value of beliefs. For example liberals believe in a strong social safety net and conservatives apparently don't believe in science and the will of the people. Trump isn't an ideology, he is a fraud.

Saying Conservatives don't believe in science is a fallacy.
Conservatives want the market to deal with issues and the market has done a marvelous job of phasing out mechanical processes in favor of electronic processes in gathering materials , processing materials and cleaning up.
It is a wonderful coincidence that the work that goes into building a civilization such as ours is less expensive with the less ecologically intrusive processes than the more ecologically intrusive processes.

How does the market handle polluting? They've been forced to clean it up. Anyway, believe COVID isn't serious, don't believe in wearing masks and climate change isn't happening regardless of what science says. Give it a rest, you're trying way too hard to be obnoxious.

How does the market control polluting? If the public is against a company who pollutes, they will refrain from purchasing their products. That is how the market controls everything....from polluting, to child labor, to poor quality of product, to overpriced product, etc

How is the market controlling polluting? It isn't. Most people don't care. You're concerned about offshoring jobs, right? But I bet you shop at WalMart, a company that facilitates moving manufacturing to China. What is your dumb fat ass doing about it? But I bet you want government to force companies to make shit here, right?

The Wal-Mart effect: Its Chinese imports have displaced nearly 200,000 U.S. jobs

China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) was supposed to improve the U.S. trade deficit with China and create good jobs in the United States. But those promises have gone unfulfilled: the total U.S. trade deficit with China reached $235 billion in 2006. Between 2001 and 2006, this...

www.epi.org

Now...if the public buys a product from a polluter, than they are more interested in their own wants than they are in the environment. If they buy a prodcut from a user of child labor? They care about their own wants than the safety of children.
That is how the free market works.

Where was your smart phone made and what are the alternatives if you know..you cared about it?

The media keeps us well informed.
Seems most who are for "environmental protection" opt to use electricity (oil based technology), cell phone batteries (charged by electricity, an oil based technology) and drive cars with either electricity (an oil based technology) or combustible engine ( gasoline is a by product of oil refinery).

Electricity comes from multiple sources now. I have solar on my roof however a lot of people don't have the option to choose their energy source. Just like they don't have a choice in batteries for their smart phone either. Just like you don't have much of a choice but to buy many products from China, but you still do it.

I love the vegans who wear leather jackets.

I'm sure some do, some don't. Some people are vegans because they don't want to kill animals to eat some do it because they think it's healthier. Could even be some vegans buy leather goods second hand. I don't think you put a lot of thought into this.

And the animal rights people that wear leather boots.

I don't. Could it be some animal rights people just want livestock treated somewhat humanely? Rather than stuck in small cages or left to freeze to death being hauled across the country? Again, zero thought on your part.

If Americans truly cared about what they claim to, they would stop buying products that are not supporting their "cause".

But they dont. Why? It is inconvenient.

Just like you.

Anyway, this is where government comes in. Good policy isn't determined at the cashier. You want a cleaner planet then larger changes need to be made. You want products made in the USA? You're not going to solve the problem at your local WalMart.

You either chose to ignore the point or you just dont get the point.
If they truly believed oil based technology is bad for the environment, then why do they use it?
No one NEEDS a smart phone. They want one.

Of course it's bad for the environment and on the individual level nothing can change that.

You see...you want the government to establish policy that forces us to do things. I get it.

That helps create renewable energy that I can more easily use, yes. Already put the solar on my house and the government helped make that more affordable.

Me? I prefer the free market decide what works and doesnt.

It will choose profits over everything else almost every single time.

If the majority of the people refused to buy smart phones due to the effect on the environment, smart phone manufacturers will find another way...such as a solar powered recharger.

How about refusing to buy smart phones because they aren't made in America? Often times in China or other low wage countries. I thought you guys had issues with that. I mean, you wanted Trump to do something after all. Your argument is only convenient because you don't believe in science.

But they dont have to. Because the occupy people,, the tree huggers, the bible thumpers, the gun owners, the vegans...heck, the Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warrens...and the AOC's.....all prefer the convenience of smart phones that are destroying the environment and using child labor.

But you want government to force companies where to manufacture.

 

[Papageorgio]

I think to become a more perfect union. There are always problems to fix.

And what does that mean? A more perfect union to me is not spending us into oblivion. People are wanting to go trillions more in debt, we don’t have the money and no means to pay. You can tax every American 100% of our income and still not reduce the debt. We are on the edge of disaster. We need to take a hard look at our spending and cut it, drastically.

Trump was spending us into oblivion while the economy was doing fine. Glad you were concerned about it after all.

The rest of your post isn't worth bothering with since nobody is being taxed at 100% nor is anyo.....ya' know fuck it, it's not even worth finishing the sentence.

You asked what 'moving forward' was and I gave you an answer, building a more perfect union. It's all gooey in founding father glory so you should pretend to like it.

Who is going to force entertainers worth 10s of millions to join the working class in this perfect Union?
The average person working on a movie makes about 15K/year.

You continue to go off into the weeds. We need some fairness in both wages and taxes.

I think he thinks he's debating Stalin or whatever.

Just telling the truth about part of the Liberal Elite.
They don’t give a shit about you.

I see. So according to your analogy (I don't know what else to call it) I am an entertainer "worth 10s of millions" and the left doesn't give a shit about me because they are going to force me to only make $15k?

It's a weird fucking world, isn't it?

You think a celebrity is going to pay you an equal salary or stay in the US if they have to pay an exorbitant amount of taxes.

Oh, so I'm not the celebrity now and the problem is you think liberal policies are going to push specifically celebrities to leave the country?

Seriously, this is a dumb argument.

So what do you think of the dozens of celebrities who promised they would leave the US in 2016?

I don't?

I thought you said they would leave if Biden was elected and the wage matching down to $15k or whatever.

Stop being stupid.
Over 100 celebrities said they would leave the US if Trump won in 2016.
As usual, they lied.
Of course you know this but you’ll lie that you don’t.

I don’t care, do you?

Simply because the Liberals here have a habit of using these celebrities to display that cool celebrities hate Trump.
Anyone who constantly breaks an oath is not cool.

I do?

Are you not a LibBot?
You love everybody who thinks exactly the same way you do.
I certainly don't see any Liberals here, or anywhere else for that matter, differing on any issue.
You come across as robots and then call those who disagree with you on any issue a TrumpBot.

Gee, liberals like conservatives tend to have a core value of beliefs. For example liberals believe in a strong social safety net and conservatives apparently don't believe in science and the will of the people. Trump isn't an ideology, he is a fraud.

Saying Conservatives don't believe in science is a fallacy.
Conservatives want the market to deal with issues and the market has done a marvelous job of phasing out mechanical processes in favor of electronic processes in gathering materials , processing materials and cleaning up.
It is a wonderful coincidence that the work that goes into building a civilization such as ours is less expensive with the less ecologically intrusive processes than the more ecologically intrusive processes.

How does the market handle polluting? They've been forced to clean it up. Anyway, believe COVID isn't serious, don't believe in wearing masks and climate change isn't happening regardless of what science says. Give it a rest, you're trying way too hard to be obnoxious.

How does the market control polluting? If the public is against a company who pollutes, they will refrain from purchasing their products. That is how the market controls everything....from polluting, to child labor, to poor quality of product, to overpriced product, etc

How is the market controlling polluting? It isn't. Most people don't care. You're concerned about offshoring jobs, right? But I bet you shop at WalMart, a company that facilitates moving manufacturing to China. What is your dumb fat ass doing about it? But I bet you want government to force companies to make shit here, right?

The Wal-Mart effect: Its Chinese imports have displaced nearly 200,000 U.S. jobs

China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) was supposed to improve the U.S. trade deficit with China and create good jobs in the United States. But those promises have gone unfulfilled: the total U.S. trade deficit with China reached $235 billion in 2006. Between 2001 and 2006, this...

www.epi.org

Now...if the public buys a product from a polluter, than they are more interested in their own wants than they are in the environment. If they buy a prodcut from a user of child labor? They care about their own wants than the safety of children.
That is how the free market works.

Where was your smart phone made and what are the alternatives if you know..you cared about it?

I refuse to shop at Walmart and shop local. I look for products that are American made, and if I can’t find the item, I ask a manager if they could find American made products, most are happy to do so.

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days. Not that you can't, I just genuinely don't know what that means anymore.

I'd say someone who realizes that we need both tax increases and budget cuts; that we need to raise the retirement age for Social Security; that realizes that we need to de-couple health insurance and employers; that we need to come to terms with the shortcomings of the geniuses that founded our nation (both personal and civic-wise) and admit that our constitution is not built for 2020. That we need to take care of anyone under 18 and over 60 medically and give the youth a chance and the elders a dignified end.

That'd be a start to a platform I think most Americans would agree with.

I like that. Great , well thought out post. Who could disagree?

everyone....

Republicans.

Obama proposed the rise in SS retirement age. Pelosi screamed bloody murder.

I'm not really for raising the retirement age either, but I'm not going to call you un-American or a traitor to the country for it. It's a debate wholly within the Democratic party.

And it shouldn't be. The science has people living to be older, more active, and incidentally...they want to work and often need the higher income. IT should guide the decision; not what life expectancy was in 1934.

Not everyone is living longer, the more well off someone is who doesn't depend as much on SS live longer, by about 14 years than poorer Americans.

This makes the argument for one health care for all! Of course those who want more can pay for it.

Medicare Advantage is a good example. As one of the major Insurance companies advised everyone it took 3 years for them to adjust to the ACA.

Now they would be able to afford more benefits. They have done that every year. In most cases with zero costs. The ACA should have been amended 10 years ago to fix the problems as most programs do.

The ACA helped fill gaps for pre existing conditions and those who simply have no other options for healthcare while also helping to define what exactly health insurance should cover so people are paying premiums for not much more than a band aid.

I'm not really sure ultimately what the solution for health insurance is in this country but it's most likely going to involve public and private entities.

Tying it to your employer is something I don't see continuing for much longer.

I agree, however it's a huge step to separate insurance from employment.

Yes. But it doesn't seem logical or sustainable.

Seems tough to me. Unless the government totally pays for everyone’s healthcare, it won’t happen. If the government did that, then there is no point in having insurance or private hospitals or doctors. I don’t think big insurance and pharma are going to go for that. That is the real issue. The big money controls Congress.

For starters I wouldn't think of private medical practices as the same as insurance. They are two different things. Also saying "government totally pays for everyone's healthcare" is not really how it works. Most people pay for their own healthcare. Either through premiums or if a government plan through some sort of tax.

do you have any ideas for people that dont want the governemnt involved in their private healthcare???

Die young.

or are all you solutions fascist in nature??

Weird.

I said thats not fascist in nature,,

Nothing stated in this thread about healthcare is fascist. Maybe try being serious.

the very nature of forcing me into a system I dont want is facsist,, and also forcing me to pay more so other people pay less is also facsist,,

You're already paying into at least one government healthcare plan not to mention social security. So, give it a rest.

that is forced on me against my will,, in other words its facsist,,

Then according to you we're living in a fascist country.

This thread is mainly about moderates and where they may find the most room in a political party for their beliefs. Republican, Democrat or a moderate party. You're making it really easy to scratch off the first option.

And you have scratched off the second option.

I'm pretty confident most moderates don't feel Social Security and Medicare is fascism. Just a hunch.

First off your reading comprehension sucks, because I never said Social Security and Medicare is fascism, maybe you should try to understand what you read instead of mindless knee jerk responses.

Many do feel that taking away employer healthcare is fascism.
There is a place in America for both employer insurance and getting your own. Just because one has employer paid health insurance and likes it doesn’t mean he doesn’t think about his own demographic, it means he sees a bigger picture that doesn’t rely on the government to fix every problem but sees multiple solutions.

A one solution fix is fascism and you still ruled out your second option.

So give us an idea how to fix health care . What do you suggest?

In another post I explained how Insurance companies saying they had adjusted to the ACA and were able to provide more benefits each year.

You stop the silly lawsuits, that is driving liability insurance costs through the roof, limiting good doctors from treating people. We are seeing more and more doctors in big clinics because they could no longer afford the liability insurance. States could allow insurance companies to cross state lines and make them more competitive. States could then offer subsidized insurance and if they want to make it income based, then do it. States then need to limit lobbying in their states. Encourage more independent doctors by offering incentives for them to leave big medicine. The states could demand insurance companies to standardize their coding for easier and quicker processes.

It’s really a state issue and the best solutions are found at state levels where better fits for the people can happen.

Sure you don't shop at WalMart or Target

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days. Not that you can't, I just genuinely don't know what that means anymore.

I'd say someone who realizes that we need both tax increases and budget cuts; that we need to raise the retirement age for Social Security; that realizes that we need to de-couple health insurance and employers; that we need to come to terms with the shortcomings of the geniuses that founded our nation (both personal and civic-wise) and admit that our constitution is not built for 2020. That we need to take care of anyone under 18 and over 60 medically and give the youth a chance and the elders a dignified end.

That'd be a start to a platform I think most Americans would agree with.

I like that. Great , well thought out post. Who could disagree?

everyone....

Republicans.

Obama proposed the rise in SS retirement age. Pelosi screamed bloody murder.

I'm not really for raising the retirement age either, but I'm not going to call you un-American or a traitor to the country for it. It's a debate wholly within the Democratic party.

And it shouldn't be. The science has people living to be older, more active, and incidentally...they want to work and often need the higher income. IT should guide the decision; not what life expectancy was in 1934.

Not everyone is living longer, the more well off someone is who doesn't depend as much on SS live longer, by about 14 years than poorer Americans.

This makes the argument for one health care for all! Of course those who want more can pay for it.

Medicare Advantage is a good example. As one of the major Insurance companies advised everyone it took 3 years for them to adjust to the ACA.

Now they would be able to afford more benefits. They have done that every year. In most cases with zero costs. The ACA should have been amended 10 years ago to fix the problems as most programs do.

The ACA helped fill gaps for pre existing conditions and those who simply have no other options for healthcare while also helping to define what exactly health insurance should cover so people are paying premiums for not much more than a band aid.

I'm not really sure ultimately what the solution for health insurance is in this country but it's most likely going to involve public and private entities.

Tying it to your employer is something I don't see continuing for much longer.

I agree, however it's a huge step to separate insurance from employment.

Yes. But it doesn't seem logical or sustainable.

Seems tough to me. Unless the government totally pays for everyone’s healthcare, it won’t happen. If the government did that, then there is no point in having insurance or private hospitals or doctors. I don’t think big insurance and pharma are going to go for that. That is the real issue. The big money controls Congress.

For starters I wouldn't think of private medical practices as the same as insurance. They are two different things. Also saying "government totally pays for everyone's healthcare" is not really how it works. Most people pay for their own healthcare. Either through premiums or if a government plan through some sort of tax.

do you have any ideas for people that dont want the governemnt involved in their private healthcare???

Die young.

or are all you solutions fascist in nature??

Weird.

I said thats not fascist in nature,,

Nothing stated in this thread about healthcare is fascist. Maybe try being serious.

the very nature of forcing me into a system I dont want is facsist,, and also forcing me to pay more so other people pay less is also facsist,,

You're already paying into at least one government healthcare plan not to mention social security. So, give it a rest.

that is forced on me against my will,, in other words its facsist,,

Then according to you we're living in a fascist country.

This thread is mainly about moderates and where they may find the most room in a political party for their beliefs. Republican, Democrat or a moderate party. You're making it really easy to scratch off the first option.

And you have scratched off the second option.

I'm pretty confident most moderates don't feel Social Security and Medicare is fascism. Just a hunch.

First off your reading comprehension sucks, because I never said Social Security and Medicare is fascism, maybe you should try to understand what you read instead of mindless knee jerk responses.

Many do feel that taking away employer healthcare is fascism.
There is a place in America for both employer insurance and getting your own. Just because one has employer paid health insurance and likes it doesn’t mean he doesn’t think about his own demographic, it means he sees a bigger picture that doesn’t rely on the government to fix every problem but sees multiple solutions.

A one solution fix is fascism and you still ruled out your second option.

So give us an idea how to fix health care . What do you suggest?

In another post I explained how Insurance companies saying they had adjusted to the ACA and were able to provide more benefits each year.

the first thing to do is get the feds out of it and let the states do what is their legal authority to do,,

its easy to trace the increase in medical care to when the feds started to get involved,,

Then what? Your non-answer isn't cutting it.

then I would lower both corp tax and personal tax and bring jobs back so more people can work and pay their own ways in life,,

So, both have already been lowered what has that done for healthcare so far? Not a thing.

I don’t go to big corporate stores, I do admit finding local mom and pops is getting tougher to find. I look for US products as much as possible and always ask stores if they have a product made in the USA. I’m not a China fan, they have lied to us many times over, lead in toys, drywall that was moldy, lying about the coronavirus. They don’t care about Americans, and will kill for the almighty dollar as they keep proving.

If I can buy American madeI do. We need to put more emphasis on building American companies.

The irony of WALMART is that Sam Walton actually prided himself on American products. The signs were up all over his stores at the beginning. Then others took over and forced companies out. Some of that is now changing and after being shamed they increased wages.

I shopped Walmart many years ago when they were proud of Americans and their products. That end awhile ago, but by that time many mom and pops went out of business.

 

[HappyJoy]

I think to become a more perfect union. There are always problems to fix.

And what does that mean? A more perfect union to me is not spending us into oblivion. People are wanting to go trillions more in debt, we don’t have the money and no means to pay. You can tax every American 100% of our income and still not reduce the debt. We are on the edge of disaster. We need to take a hard look at our spending and cut it, drastically.

Trump was spending us into oblivion while the economy was doing fine. Glad you were concerned about it after all.

The rest of your post isn't worth bothering with since nobody is being taxed at 100% nor is anyo.....ya' know fuck it, it's not even worth finishing the sentence.

You asked what 'moving forward' was and I gave you an answer, building a more perfect union. It's all gooey in founding father glory so you should pretend to like it.

Who is going to force entertainers worth 10s of millions to join the working class in this perfect Union?
The average person working on a movie makes about 15K/year.

You continue to go off into the weeds. We need some fairness in both wages and taxes.

I think he thinks he's debating Stalin or whatever.

Just telling the truth about part of the Liberal Elite.
They don’t give a shit about you.

I see. So according to your analogy (I don't know what else to call it) I am an entertainer "worth 10s of millions" and the left doesn't give a shit about me because they are going to force me to only make $15k?

It's a weird fucking world, isn't it?

You think a celebrity is going to pay you an equal salary or stay in the US if they have to pay an exorbitant amount of taxes.

Oh, so I'm not the celebrity now and the problem is you think liberal policies are going to push specifically celebrities to leave the country?

Seriously, this is a dumb argument.

So what do you think of the dozens of celebrities who promised they would leave the US in 2016?

I don't?

I thought you said they would leave if Biden was elected and the wage matching down to $15k or whatever.

Stop being stupid.
Over 100 celebrities said they would leave the US if Trump won in 2016.
As usual, they lied.
Of course you know this but you’ll lie that you don’t.

I don’t care, do you?

Simply because the Liberals here have a habit of using these celebrities to display that cool celebrities hate Trump.
Anyone who constantly breaks an oath is not cool.

I do?

Are you not a LibBot?
You love everybody who thinks exactly the same way you do.
I certainly don't see any Liberals here, or anywhere else for that matter, differing on any issue.
You come across as robots and then call those who disagree with you on any issue a TrumpBot.

Gee, liberals like conservatives tend to have a core value of beliefs. For example liberals believe in a strong social safety net and conservatives apparently don't believe in science and the will of the people. Trump isn't an ideology, he is a fraud.

Saying Conservatives don't believe in science is a fallacy.
Conservatives want the market to deal with issues and the market has done a marvelous job of phasing out mechanical processes in favor of electronic processes in gathering materials , processing materials and cleaning up.
It is a wonderful coincidence that the work that goes into building a civilization such as ours is less expensive with the less ecologically intrusive processes than the more ecologically intrusive processes.

How does the market handle polluting? They've been forced to clean it up. Anyway, believe COVID isn't serious, don't believe in wearing masks and climate change isn't happening regardless of what science says. Give it a rest, you're trying way too hard to be obnoxious.

How does the market control polluting? If the public is against a company who pollutes, they will refrain from purchasing their products. That is how the market controls everything....from polluting, to child labor, to poor quality of product, to overpriced product, etc

How is the market controlling polluting? It isn't. Most people don't care. You're concerned about offshoring jobs, right? But I bet you shop at WalMart, a company that facilitates moving manufacturing to China. What is your dumb fat ass doing about it? But I bet you want government to force companies to make shit here, right?

The Wal-Mart effect: Its Chinese imports have displaced nearly 200,000 U.S. jobs

China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) was supposed to improve the U.S. trade deficit with China and create good jobs in the United States. But those promises have gone unfulfilled: the total U.S. trade deficit with China reached $235 billion in 2006. Between 2001 and 2006, this...

www.epi.org

Now...if the public buys a product from a polluter, than they are more interested in their own wants than they are in the environment. If they buy a prodcut from a user of child labor? They care about their own wants than the safety of children.
That is how the free market works.

Where was your smart phone made and what are the alternatives if you know..you cared about it?

I refuse to shop at Walmart and shop local. I look for products that are American made, and if I can’t find the item, I ask a manager if they could find American made products, most are happy to do so.

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days. Not that you can't, I just genuinely don't know what that means anymore.

I'd say someone who realizes that we need both tax increases and budget cuts; that we need to raise the retirement age for Social Security; that realizes that we need to de-couple health insurance and employers; that we need to come to terms with the shortcomings of the geniuses that founded our nation (both personal and civic-wise) and admit that our constitution is not built for 2020. That we need to take care of anyone under 18 and over 60 medically and give the youth a chance and the elders a dignified end.

That'd be a start to a platform I think most Americans would agree with.

I like that. Great , well thought out post. Who could disagree?

everyone....

Republicans.

Obama proposed the rise in SS retirement age. Pelosi screamed bloody murder.

I'm not really for raising the retirement age either, but I'm not going to call you un-American or a traitor to the country for it. It's a debate wholly within the Democratic party.

And it shouldn't be. The science has people living to be older, more active, and incidentally...they want to work and often need the higher income. IT should guide the decision; not what life expectancy was in 1934.

Not everyone is living longer, the more well off someone is who doesn't depend as much on SS live longer, by about 14 years than poorer Americans.

This makes the argument for one health care for all! Of course those who want more can pay for it.

Medicare Advantage is a good example. As one of the major Insurance companies advised everyone it took 3 years for them to adjust to the ACA.

Now they would be able to afford more benefits. They have done that every year. In most cases with zero costs. The ACA should have been amended 10 years ago to fix the problems as most programs do.

The ACA helped fill gaps for pre existing conditions and those who simply have no other options for healthcare while also helping to define what exactly health insurance should cover so people are paying premiums for not much more than a band aid.

I'm not really sure ultimately what the solution for health insurance is in this country but it's most likely going to involve public and private entities.

Tying it to your employer is something I don't see continuing for much longer.

I agree, however it's a huge step to separate insurance from employment.

Yes. But it doesn't seem logical or sustainable.

Seems tough to me. Unless the government totally pays for everyone’s healthcare, it won’t happen. If the government did that, then there is no point in having insurance or private hospitals or doctors. I don’t think big insurance and pharma are going to go for that. That is the real issue. The big money controls Congress.

For starters I wouldn't think of private medical practices as the same as insurance. They are two different things. Also saying "government totally pays for everyone's healthcare" is not really how it works. Most people pay for their own healthcare. Either through premiums or if a government plan through some sort of tax.

do you have any ideas for people that dont want the governemnt involved in their private healthcare???

Die young.

or are all you solutions fascist in nature??

Weird.

I said thats not fascist in nature,,

Nothing stated in this thread about healthcare is fascist. Maybe try being serious.

the very nature of forcing me into a system I dont want is facsist,, and also forcing me to pay more so other people pay less is also facsist,,

You're already paying into at least one government healthcare plan not to mention social security. So, give it a rest.

that is forced on me against my will,, in other words its facsist,,

Then according to you we're living in a fascist country.

This thread is mainly about moderates and where they may find the most room in a political party for their beliefs. Republican, Democrat or a moderate party. You're making it really easy to scratch off the first option.

And you have scratched off the second option.

I'm pretty confident most moderates don't feel Social Security and Medicare is fascism. Just a hunch.

First off your reading comprehension sucks, because I never said Social Security and Medicare is fascism, maybe you should try to understand what you read instead of mindless knee jerk responses.

Many do feel that taking away employer healthcare is fascism.
There is a place in America for both employer insurance and getting your own. Just because one has employer paid health insurance and likes it doesn’t mean he doesn’t think about his own demographic, it means he sees a bigger picture that doesn’t rely on the government to fix every problem but sees multiple solutions.

A one solution fix is fascism and you still ruled out your second option.

So give us an idea how to fix health care . What do you suggest?

In another post I explained how Insurance companies saying they had adjusted to the ACA and were able to provide more benefits each year.

You stop the silly lawsuits, that is driving liability insurance costs through the roof, limiting good doctors from treating people. We are seeing more and more doctors in big clinics because they could no longer afford the liability insurance. States could allow insurance companies to cross state lines and make them more competitive. States could then offer subsidized insurance and if they want to make it income based, then do it. States then need to limit lobbying in their states. Encourage more independent doctors by offering incentives for them to leave big medicine. The states could demand insurance companies to standardize their coding for easier and quicker processes.

It’s really a state issue and the best solutions are found at state levels where better fits for the people can happen.

Sure you don't shop at WalMart or Target

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days. Not that you can't, I just genuinely don't know what that means anymore.

I'd say someone who realizes that we need both tax increases and budget cuts; that we need to raise the retirement age for Social Security; that realizes that we need to de-couple health insurance and employers; that we need to come to terms with the shortcomings of the geniuses that founded our nation (both personal and civic-wise) and admit that our constitution is not built for 2020. That we need to take care of anyone under 18 and over 60 medically and give the youth a chance and the elders a dignified end.

That'd be a start to a platform I think most Americans would agree with.

I like that. Great , well thought out post. Who could disagree?

everyone....

Republicans.

Obama proposed the rise in SS retirement age. Pelosi screamed bloody murder.

I'm not really for raising the retirement age either, but I'm not going to call you un-American or a traitor to the country for it. It's a debate wholly within the Democratic party.

And it shouldn't be. The science has people living to be older, more active, and incidentally...they want to work and often need the higher income. IT should guide the decision; not what life expectancy was in 1934.

Not everyone is living longer, the more well off someone is who doesn't depend as much on SS live longer, by about 14 years than poorer Americans.

This makes the argument for one health care for all! Of course those who want more can pay for it.

Medicare Advantage is a good example. As one of the major Insurance companies advised everyone it took 3 years for them to adjust to the ACA.

Now they would be able to afford more benefits. They have done that every year. In most cases with zero costs. The ACA should have been amended 10 years ago to fix the problems as most programs do.

The ACA helped fill gaps for pre existing conditions and those who simply have no other options for healthcare while also helping to define what exactly health insurance should cover so people are paying premiums for not much more than a band aid.

I'm not really sure ultimately what the solution for health insurance is in this country but it's most likely going to involve public and private entities.

Tying it to your employer is something I don't see continuing for much longer.

I agree, however it's a huge step to separate insurance from employment.

Yes. But it doesn't seem logical or sustainable.

Seems tough to me. Unless the government totally pays for everyone’s healthcare, it won’t happen. If the government did that, then there is no point in having insurance or private hospitals or doctors. I don’t think big insurance and pharma are going to go for that. That is the real issue. The big money controls Congress.

For starters I wouldn't think of private medical practices as the same as insurance. They are two different things. Also saying "government totally pays for everyone's healthcare" is not really how it works. Most people pay for their own healthcare. Either through premiums or if a government plan through some sort of tax.

do you have any ideas for people that dont want the governemnt involved in their private healthcare???

Die young.

or are all you solutions fascist in nature??

Weird.

I said thats not fascist in nature,,

Nothing stated in this thread about healthcare is fascist. Maybe try being serious.

the very nature of forcing me into a system I dont want is facsist,, and also forcing me to pay more so other people pay less is also facsist,,

You're already paying into at least one government healthcare plan not to mention social security. So, give it a rest.

that is forced on me against my will,, in other words its facsist,,

Then according to you we're living in a fascist country.

This thread is mainly about moderates and where they may find the most room in a political party for their beliefs. Republican, Democrat or a moderate party. You're making it really easy to scratch off the first option.

And you have scratched off the second option.

I'm pretty confident most moderates don't feel Social Security and Medicare is fascism. Just a hunch.

First off your reading comprehension sucks, because I never said Social Security and Medicare is fascism, maybe you should try to understand what you read instead of mindless knee jerk responses.

Many do feel that taking away employer healthcare is fascism.
There is a place in America for both employer insurance and getting your own. Just because one has employer paid health insurance and likes it doesn’t mean he doesn’t think about his own demographic, it means he sees a bigger picture that doesn’t rely on the government to fix every problem but sees multiple solutions.

A one solution fix is fascism and you still ruled out your second option.

So give us an idea how to fix health care . What do you suggest?

In another post I explained how Insurance companies saying they had adjusted to the ACA and were able to provide more benefits each year.

the first thing to do is get the feds out of it and let the states do what is their legal authority to do,,

its easy to trace the increase in medical care to when the feds started to get involved,,

Then what? Your non-answer isn't cutting it.

then I would lower both corp tax and personal tax and bring jobs back so more people can work and pay their own ways in life,,

So, both have already been lowered what has that done for healthcare so far? Not a thing.

I don’t go to big corporate stores, I do admit finding local mom and pops is getting tougher to find. I look for US products as much as possible and always ask stores if they have a product made in the USA. I’m not a China fan, they have lied to us many times over, lead in toys, drywall that was moldy, lying about the coronavirus. They don’t care about Americans, and will kill for the almighty dollar as they keep proving.

If I can buy American madeI do. We need to put more emphasis on building American companies.

The irony of WALMART is that Sam Walton actually prided himself on American products. The signs were up all over his stores at the beginning. Then others took over and forced companies out. Some of that is now changing and after being shamed they increased wages.

Same and WalMart did a complete 180 on trade. I guess that's changing back but I doubt it. I'd like to see is us stop subsidizing WalMart, Amazon and others when they pay their employees so little that they end up on food stamps. Talk about corporate welfare.

 

[HappyJoy]

I don’t go to big corporate stores, I do admit finding local mom and pops is getting tougher to find. I look for US products as much as possible and always ask stores if they have a product made in the USA. I’m not a China fan, they have lied to us many times over, lead in toys, drywall that was moldy, lying about the coronavirus. They don’t care about Americans, and will kill for the almighty dollar as they keep proving.

Reality check. Not all Americans do what you want me to believe you do.

Reality check, I don’t care what you believe.

Then stop wasting your time replying.

 

[progressive hunter]

I think to become a more perfect union. There are always problems to fix.

And what does that mean? A more perfect union to me is not spending us into oblivion. People are wanting to go trillions more in debt, we don’t have the money and no means to pay. You can tax every American 100% of our income and still not reduce the debt. We are on the edge of disaster. We need to take a hard look at our spending and cut it, drastically.

Trump was spending us into oblivion while the economy was doing fine. Glad you were concerned about it after all.

The rest of your post isn't worth bothering with since nobody is being taxed at 100% nor is anyo.....ya' know fuck it, it's not even worth finishing the sentence.

You asked what 'moving forward' was and I gave you an answer, building a more perfect union. It's all gooey in founding father glory so you should pretend to like it.

Who is going to force entertainers worth 10s of millions to join the working class in this perfect Union?
The average person working on a movie makes about 15K/year.

You continue to go off into the weeds. We need some fairness in both wages and taxes.

I think he thinks he's debating Stalin or whatever.

Just telling the truth about part of the Liberal Elite.
They don’t give a shit about you.

I see. So according to your analogy (I don't know what else to call it) I am an entertainer "worth 10s of millions" and the left doesn't give a shit about me because they are going to force me to only make $15k?

It's a weird fucking world, isn't it?

You think a celebrity is going to pay you an equal salary or stay in the US if they have to pay an exorbitant amount of taxes.

Oh, so I'm not the celebrity now and the problem is you think liberal policies are going to push specifically celebrities to leave the country?

Seriously, this is a dumb argument.

So what do you think of the dozens of celebrities who promised they would leave the US in 2016?

I don't?

I thought you said they would leave if Biden was elected and the wage matching down to $15k or whatever.

Stop being stupid.
Over 100 celebrities said they would leave the US if Trump won in 2016.
As usual, they lied.
Of course you know this but you’ll lie that you don’t.

I don’t care, do you?

Simply because the Liberals here have a habit of using these celebrities to display that cool celebrities hate Trump.
Anyone who constantly breaks an oath is not cool.

I do?

Are you not a LibBot?
You love everybody who thinks exactly the same way you do.
I certainly don't see any Liberals here, or anywhere else for that matter, differing on any issue.
You come across as robots and then call those who disagree with you on any issue a TrumpBot.

Gee, liberals like conservatives tend to have a core value of beliefs. For example liberals believe in a strong social safety net and conservatives apparently don't believe in science and the will of the people. Trump isn't an ideology, he is a fraud.

Saying Conservatives don't believe in science is a fallacy.
Conservatives want the market to deal with issues and the market has done a marvelous job of phasing out mechanical processes in favor of electronic processes in gathering materials , processing materials and cleaning up.
It is a wonderful coincidence that the work that goes into building a civilization such as ours is less expensive with the less ecologically intrusive processes than the more ecologically intrusive processes.

How does the market handle polluting? They've been forced to clean it up. Anyway, believe COVID isn't serious, don't believe in wearing masks and climate change isn't happening regardless of what science says. Give it a rest, you're trying way too hard to be obnoxious.

How does the market control polluting? If the public is against a company who pollutes, they will refrain from purchasing their products. That is how the market controls everything....from polluting, to child labor, to poor quality of product, to overpriced product, etc

How is the market controlling polluting? It isn't. Most people don't care. You're concerned about offshoring jobs, right? But I bet you shop at WalMart, a company that facilitates moving manufacturing to China. What is your dumb fat ass doing about it? But I bet you want government to force companies to make shit here, right?

The Wal-Mart effect: Its Chinese imports have displaced nearly 200,000 U.S. jobs

China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) was supposed to improve the U.S. trade deficit with China and create good jobs in the United States. But those promises have gone unfulfilled: the total U.S. trade deficit with China reached $235 billion in 2006. Between 2001 and 2006, this...

www.epi.org

Now...if the public buys a product from a polluter, than they are more interested in their own wants than they are in the environment. If they buy a prodcut from a user of child labor? They care about their own wants than the safety of children.
That is how the free market works.

Where was your smart phone made and what are the alternatives if you know..you cared about it?

I refuse to shop at Walmart and shop local. I look for products that are American made, and if I can’t find the item, I ask a manager if they could find American made products, most are happy to do so.

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days. Not that you can't, I just genuinely don't know what that means anymore.

I'd say someone who realizes that we need both tax increases and budget cuts; that we need to raise the retirement age for Social Security; that realizes that we need to de-couple health insurance and employers; that we need to come to terms with the shortcomings of the geniuses that founded our nation (both personal and civic-wise) and admit that our constitution is not built for 2020. That we need to take care of anyone under 18 and over 60 medically and give the youth a chance and the elders a dignified end.

That'd be a start to a platform I think most Americans would agree with.

I like that. Great , well thought out post. Who could disagree?

everyone....

Republicans.

Obama proposed the rise in SS retirement age. Pelosi screamed bloody murder.

I'm not really for raising the retirement age either, but I'm not going to call you un-American or a traitor to the country for it. It's a debate wholly within the Democratic party.

And it shouldn't be. The science has people living to be older, more active, and incidentally...they want to work and often need the higher income. IT should guide the decision; not what life expectancy was in 1934.

Not everyone is living longer, the more well off someone is who doesn't depend as much on SS live longer, by about 14 years than poorer Americans.

This makes the argument for one health care for all! Of course those who want more can pay for it.

Medicare Advantage is a good example. As one of the major Insurance companies advised everyone it took 3 years for them to adjust to the ACA.

Now they would be able to afford more benefits. They have done that every year. In most cases with zero costs. The ACA should have been amended 10 years ago to fix the problems as most programs do.

The ACA helped fill gaps for pre existing conditions and those who simply have no other options for healthcare while also helping to define what exactly health insurance should cover so people are paying premiums for not much more than a band aid.

I'm not really sure ultimately what the solution for health insurance is in this country but it's most likely going to involve public and private entities.

Tying it to your employer is something I don't see continuing for much longer.

I agree, however it's a huge step to separate insurance from employment.

Yes. But it doesn't seem logical or sustainable.

Seems tough to me. Unless the government totally pays for everyone’s healthcare, it won’t happen. If the government did that, then there is no point in having insurance or private hospitals or doctors. I don’t think big insurance and pharma are going to go for that. That is the real issue. The big money controls Congress.

For starters I wouldn't think of private medical practices as the same as insurance. They are two different things. Also saying "government totally pays for everyone's healthcare" is not really how it works. Most people pay for their own healthcare. Either through premiums or if a government plan through some sort of tax.

do you have any ideas for people that dont want the governemnt involved in their private healthcare???

Die young.

or are all you solutions fascist in nature??

Weird.

I said thats not fascist in nature,,

Nothing stated in this thread about healthcare is fascist. Maybe try being serious.

the very nature of forcing me into a system I dont want is facsist,, and also forcing me to pay more so other people pay less is also facsist,,

You're already paying into at least one government healthcare plan not to mention social security. So, give it a rest.

that is forced on me against my will,, in other words its facsist,,

Then according to you we're living in a fascist country.

This thread is mainly about moderates and where they may find the most room in a political party for their beliefs. Republican, Democrat or a moderate party. You're making it really easy to scratch off the first option.

And you have scratched off the second option.

I'm pretty confident most moderates don't feel Social Security and Medicare is fascism. Just a hunch.

First off your reading comprehension sucks, because I never said Social Security and Medicare is fascism, maybe you should try to understand what you read instead of mindless knee jerk responses.

Many do feel that taking away employer healthcare is fascism.
There is a place in America for both employer insurance and getting your own. Just because one has employer paid health insurance and likes it doesn’t mean he doesn’t think about his own demographic, it means he sees a bigger picture that doesn’t rely on the government to fix every problem but sees multiple solutions.

A one solution fix is fascism and you still ruled out your second option.

So give us an idea how to fix health care . What do you suggest?

In another post I explained how Insurance companies saying they had adjusted to the ACA and were able to provide more benefits each year.

You stop the silly lawsuits, that is driving liability insurance costs through the roof, limiting good doctors from treating people. We are seeing more and more doctors in big clinics because they could no longer afford the liability insurance. States could allow insurance companies to cross state lines and make them more competitive. States could then offer subsidized insurance and if they want to make it income based, then do it. States then need to limit lobbying in their states. Encourage more independent doctors by offering incentives for them to leave big medicine. The states could demand insurance companies to standardize their coding for easier and quicker processes.

It’s really a state issue and the best solutions are found at state levels where better fits for the people can happen.

Sure you don't shop at WalMart or Target

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days. Not that you can't, I just genuinely don't know what that means anymore.

I'd say someone who realizes that we need both tax increases and budget cuts; that we need to raise the retirement age for Social Security; that realizes that we need to de-couple health insurance and employers; that we need to come to terms with the shortcomings of the geniuses that founded our nation (both personal and civic-wise) and admit that our constitution is not built for 2020. That we need to take care of anyone under 18 and over 60 medically and give the youth a chance and the elders a dignified end.

That'd be a start to a platform I think most Americans would agree with.

I like that. Great , well thought out post. Who could disagree?

everyone....

Republicans.

Obama proposed the rise in SS retirement age. Pelosi screamed bloody murder.

I'm not really for raising the retirement age either, but I'm not going to call you un-American or a traitor to the country for it. It's a debate wholly within the Democratic party.

And it shouldn't be. The science has people living to be older, more active, and incidentally...they want to work and often need the higher income. IT should guide the decision; not what life expectancy was in 1934.

Not everyone is living longer, the more well off someone is who doesn't depend as much on SS live longer, by about 14 years than poorer Americans.

This makes the argument for one health care for all! Of course those who want more can pay for it.

Medicare Advantage is a good example. As one of the major Insurance companies advised everyone it took 3 years for them to adjust to the ACA.

Now they would be able to afford more benefits. They have done that every year. In most cases with zero costs. The ACA should have been amended 10 years ago to fix the problems as most programs do.

The ACA helped fill gaps for pre existing conditions and those who simply have no other options for healthcare while also helping to define what exactly health insurance should cover so people are paying premiums for not much more than a band aid.

I'm not really sure ultimately what the solution for health insurance is in this country but it's most likely going to involve public and private entities.

Tying it to your employer is something I don't see continuing for much longer.

I agree, however it's a huge step to separate insurance from employment.

Yes. But it doesn't seem logical or sustainable.

Seems tough to me. Unless the government totally pays for everyone’s healthcare, it won’t happen. If the government did that, then there is no point in having insurance or private hospitals or doctors. I don’t think big insurance and pharma are going to go for that. That is the real issue. The big money controls Congress.

For starters I wouldn't think of private medical practices as the same as insurance. They are two different things. Also saying "government totally pays for everyone's healthcare" is not really how it works. Most people pay for their own healthcare. Either through premiums or if a government plan through some sort of tax.

do you have any ideas for people that dont want the governemnt involved in their private healthcare???

Die young.

or are all you solutions fascist in nature??

Weird.

I said thats not fascist in nature,,

Nothing stated in this thread about healthcare is fascist. Maybe try being serious.

the very nature of forcing me into a system I dont want is facsist,, and also forcing me to pay more so other people pay less is also facsist,,

You're already paying into at least one government healthcare plan not to mention social security. So, give it a rest.

that is forced on me against my will,, in other words its facsist,,

Then according to you we're living in a fascist country.

This thread is mainly about moderates and where they may find the most room in a political party for their beliefs. Republican, Democrat or a moderate party. You're making it really easy to scratch off the first option.

And you have scratched off the second option.

I'm pretty confident most moderates don't feel Social Security and Medicare is fascism. Just a hunch.

First off your reading comprehension sucks, because I never said Social Security and Medicare is fascism, maybe you should try to understand what you read instead of mindless knee jerk responses.

Many do feel that taking away employer healthcare is fascism.
There is a place in America for both employer insurance and getting your own. Just because one has employer paid health insurance and likes it doesn’t mean he doesn’t think about his own demographic, it means he sees a bigger picture that doesn’t rely on the government to fix every problem but sees multiple solutions.

A one solution fix is fascism and you still ruled out your second option.

So give us an idea how to fix health care . What do you suggest?

In another post I explained how Insurance companies saying they had adjusted to the ACA and were able to provide more benefits each year.

the first thing to do is get the feds out of it and let the states do what is their legal authority to do,,

its easy to trace the increase in medical care to when the feds started to get involved,,

Then what? Your non-answer isn't cutting it.

then I would lower both corp tax and personal tax and bring jobs back so more people can work and pay their own ways in life,,

So, both have already been lowered what has that done for healthcare so far? Not a thing.

I don’t go to big corporate stores, I do admit finding local mom and pops is getting tougher to find. I look for US products as much as possible and always ask stores if they have a product made in the USA. I’m not a China fan, they have lied to us many times over, lead in toys, drywall that was moldy, lying about the coronavirus. They don’t care about Americans, and will kill for the almighty dollar as they keep proving.

If I can buy American madeI do. We need to put more emphasis on building American companies.

The irony of WALMART is that Sam Walton actually prided himself on American products. The signs were up all over his stores at the beginning. Then others took over and forced companies out. Some of that is now changing and after being shamed they increased wages.

Same and WalMart did a complete 180 on trade. I guess that's changing back but I doubt it. I'd like to see is us stop subsidizing WalMart, Amazon and others when they pay their employees so little that they end up on food stamps. Talk about corporate welfare.

just stop giving them food stamps,,,

 

[Cecilie1200]

democrats are moving too far left
republicans have gone too far right
i find myself appreciating rinos and dinos more these days
we need a third party for the majority of us who are moderates

I've largely given up on this idea, considering the stranglehold the two "major" parties have on our election system. Plus, if such a party can't appear NOW, as ridiculous and polarized as things are, one NEVER will.

What I'm hoping now is that one of the parties will wake up and realize that a majority of the country wants moderation and cooperation, and be the first to take advantage of that. The problem is that the wings have most of the energy, and therefore the influence.

I don't know what fixes this.

It is actually more simple than you realize.
The Constitution is not a living document. It is a guideline.
It has resulted in the development of a union
It has allowed the freeing of people in bondage
It has allowed for fair elections
It has allowed for a SCOTUS that makes monumental decisions
It has allowed for the right to vote for women
It has allowed for the right to vote for all Americans
It has allowed for equal rights for all Americans
It has allowed for 3 equal branches of government offering checks and balances.

Sure, we were imperfect as a country back in the 1700's....we were new, we had habits of our heritages.....but it is our constitution that FORCED us to right our wrongs.

So what fixes it? Let the constitution do its job.

It really isnt that difficult. Only to the politicians who are trying to get votes.

And THAT is the problem.

Let the Constitution do what? Mind explaining further?

Not to start an argument. What is considered moderate these days? Like for these topics:
abortion
healthcare
taxes
national defense
foreign policy at large
What is the moderate position on each?

Abortion is the closest to being a binary argument. The rest all exist along a continuum and are not binary.

And I think we've fallen into a trap, thinking that one side has to "win" on any given issue, and one side has to "lose".

How about both sides collaborating, innovating, and creating something NEW, like our Constitution? That way we all have skin in the game.

America used to be able to innovate, back when we were great.

I agree, progress is only made through compromise and collaboration. But, that's not really a stance it's just asking the current parties to talk to each other. I was more curious as to what are the political beliefs of a moderate. Usually when they are asked it's quite clear that they would more than fit into one party or the other.

I think there are a couple of characteristics, depending on the individual moderate. So:

• Some moderates have strong feelings on any given issue, but their opinions as a whole don't fit with one of the tribes. So, a moderate may be passionately pro choice and passionately pro lowering income taxes. Neither tribe, then, is a fit for them.
• Some moderates really do want to find some kind of middle ground on most issues. They believe that there are decent or fair arguments on both ends, and want to at least begin the conversation by finding shared views and going from there.
• Some moderates think that both tribes are narcissistic gasbags and would rather just approach each issue on its own merits, taking some ideas from column A, some from column B, and the rest from new ideas.

My two cents, anyway.

I don't think you have to be a 'moderate' to want to compromise. As a liberal, I'd rather get something rather than nothing.

But since this thread is about a moderate party, what is that exactly? How are a group of people who claim to be in the middle however their various opinions on a range of topics will individually slide from liberal to conservative leaning is supposed to make up a cohesive political party?

That I couldn't tell you, since we've never really had one. I think a glimpse of it came a few years ago when there was talk of a Kasich/Hickenlooper ticket.

But to your point, I think a party that was clearly committed to collaboration and new ideas would draw many people who didn't necessarily agree with its candidates on every issue. So the appeal would be more about general approach than specific positions.

Please do not build John Kasich into what he is not. He is far from moderate.

Lets see.
the constitution allowed for women to vote. It was only because of the constitution that were given the right to vote. I agree with the decision and I respect it.
The consitution allowed for the decision of Roe V Wade. I disagree with the decision, but I respect it.

You see, our constitution was written in a way where it allowed for debate and it allowed for majority decision and implementation of laws and rights.

Seems to be working well.

Albeit, there are those that say it is a living document and we must adjust to it.

To me? That is wrong. It is a document and we must apply it....not Obey it....that would be wrong....apply it. And that is what we do.

And it is working.

Good points but it only works when people stand up for rights. I think that is why many call it a living document.

We have three branches of government. 2 of them are elected and one is appointed by the executive branch...however...with the confirmation of the senate. Those elections are how people can stand up for their rights. But when people are voted in they still must adhere to the constitution as it is a guidance for legislative decisions made by those elected.
Sure, protests are good....and they allow the legislators to hesitate and reconsider....but it is the constitution that keeps them in check and not simply do what they want to do for votes, but instead so what the constitution has deemed best for the overall good.
I know...the left would love to toss the constitution. But without it? We would not have women voting, African Americans voting. abortion legalized. The ACLU pushing rights of Americans.
The constitution ensures we do the right thing and not do something that can be damaging.
A good example is the ACA. Justice Roberts was well aware that the constitution does not allow for forcing anyone to purchase something from the day they are born to the day they die. So he called it a tax.
For right or wrong and regardless of how you feel...it was the constitution that guided that decision. And without the creativity of Justice Roberts, the act was unconstitutional.

Just thin about this....what if a law was passed that said you MUST buy only American made cars....and you MUST buy it at no age older than 18? It is the constitution that prevents such ridiculous laws being imposed on the American People.

You abject to health care as a right? I do not. Millions of others feel as I do.

healthcare is a product/service supplied by other people not a right,, unless of course you support slavery,,

Health care for all is slavery? I disagree.

what else do you call forced labor???

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days.

moderate

dont want civil war
dont want religious laws
laws based on logic, reason and necessity
government out of private life
police do their jobs without killing people in the streets
fair tax system
affordable education
affordable healthcare

limit immigration to people who;
speak enough english to get by
have employment ready for them
will not get goverment handouts

stop the war on pot
all citizens have equal rights and protections

be more small business friendly

Fair tax system, affordable education, affordable healthcare? What does any of that mean? Limit immigration because they can or can’t speak English?

Laws based on logic, reason and necessity?

Sounds like politics by feelings. That is where we already are.

those are leftwing policies,,

We are discussing how to make things work, not left or right. You are just going off into blame and politics. Move on.

making things work while violating the constitution is leftwing authoritarian politics,,

You do not want to have a discussion on what needs to be done. You just want to blame.

I am willing to discuss moving forward, what can be done to help people and our country to move on. Any one care to respond I will read.

As long as we agree with you we can move forward, right?

I am not asking for anyone to agree with me. Just want all of us to move forward. But I admit I have strong feelings. My bad.

You sound very much like you consider "forward" to be doing the things you want, the way you want them. So that would kind of require us to agree with you.

There's nothing bad about advocating for things you believe to be correct. In fact, I would certainly hope that if you're advocating for policies, it's because you genuinely believe they're what's best for everyone. There seem to be far too many people out there who don't believe what they want is best for others, but demand it anyway because it's good for them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

democrats are moving too far left
republicans have gone too far right
i find myself appreciating rinos and dinos more these days
we need a third party for the majority of us who are moderates

I've largely given up on this idea, considering the stranglehold the two "major" parties have on our election system. Plus, if such a party can't appear NOW, as ridiculous and polarized as things are, one NEVER will.

What I'm hoping now is that one of the parties will wake up and realize that a majority of the country wants moderation and cooperation, and be the first to take advantage of that. The problem is that the wings have most of the energy, and therefore the influence.

I don't know what fixes this.

It is actually more simple than you realize.
The Constitution is not a living document. It is a guideline.
It has resulted in the development of a union
It has allowed the freeing of people in bondage
It has allowed for fair elections
It has allowed for a SCOTUS that makes monumental decisions
It has allowed for the right to vote for women
It has allowed for the right to vote for all Americans
It has allowed for equal rights for all Americans
It has allowed for 3 equal branches of government offering checks and balances.

Sure, we were imperfect as a country back in the 1700's....we were new, we had habits of our heritages.....but it is our constitution that FORCED us to right our wrongs.

So what fixes it? Let the constitution do its job.

It really isnt that difficult. Only to the politicians who are trying to get votes.

And THAT is the problem.

Let the Constitution do what? Mind explaining further?

Not to start an argument. What is considered moderate these days? Like for these topics:
abortion
healthcare
taxes
national defense
foreign policy at large
What is the moderate position on each?

Abortion is the closest to being a binary argument. The rest all exist along a continuum and are not binary.

And I think we've fallen into a trap, thinking that one side has to "win" on any given issue, and one side has to "lose".

How about both sides collaborating, innovating, and creating something NEW, like our Constitution? That way we all have skin in the game.

America used to be able to innovate, back when we were great.

I agree, progress is only made through compromise and collaboration. But, that's not really a stance it's just asking the current parties to talk to each other. I was more curious as to what are the political beliefs of a moderate. Usually when they are asked it's quite clear that they would more than fit into one party or the other.

I think there are a couple of characteristics, depending on the individual moderate. So:

• Some moderates have strong feelings on any given issue, but their opinions as a whole don't fit with one of the tribes. So, a moderate may be passionately pro choice and passionately pro lowering income taxes. Neither tribe, then, is a fit for them.
• Some moderates really do want to find some kind of middle ground on most issues. They believe that there are decent or fair arguments on both ends, and want to at least begin the conversation by finding shared views and going from there.
• Some moderates think that both tribes are narcissistic gasbags and would rather just approach each issue on its own merits, taking some ideas from column A, some from column B, and the rest from new ideas.

My two cents, anyway.

I don't think you have to be a 'moderate' to want to compromise. As a liberal, I'd rather get something rather than nothing.

But since this thread is about a moderate party, what is that exactly? How are a group of people who claim to be in the middle however their various opinions on a range of topics will individually slide from liberal to conservative leaning is supposed to make up a cohesive political party?

That I couldn't tell you, since we've never really had one. I think a glimpse of it came a few years ago when there was talk of a Kasich/Hickenlooper ticket.

But to your point, I think a party that was clearly committed to collaboration and new ideas would draw many people who didn't necessarily agree with its candidates on every issue. So the appeal would be more about general approach than specific positions.

Please do not build John Kasich into what he is not. He is far from moderate.

Lets see.
the constitution allowed for women to vote. It was only because of the constitution that were given the right to vote. I agree with the decision and I respect it.
The consitution allowed for the decision of Roe V Wade. I disagree with the decision, but I respect it.

You see, our constitution was written in a way where it allowed for debate and it allowed for majority decision and implementation of laws and rights.

Seems to be working well.

Albeit, there are those that say it is a living document and we must adjust to it.

To me? That is wrong. It is a document and we must apply it....not Obey it....that would be wrong....apply it. And that is what we do.

And it is working.

Good points but it only works when people stand up for rights. I think that is why many call it a living document.

We have three branches of government. 2 of them are elected and one is appointed by the executive branch...however...with the confirmation of the senate. Those elections are how people can stand up for their rights. But when people are voted in they still must adhere to the constitution as it is a guidance for legislative decisions made by those elected.
Sure, protests are good....and they allow the legislators to hesitate and reconsider....but it is the constitution that keeps them in check and not simply do what they want to do for votes, but instead so what the constitution has deemed best for the overall good.
I know...the left would love to toss the constitution. But without it? We would not have women voting, African Americans voting. abortion legalized. The ACLU pushing rights of Americans.
The constitution ensures we do the right thing and not do something that can be damaging.
A good example is the ACA. Justice Roberts was well aware that the constitution does not allow for forcing anyone to purchase something from the day they are born to the day they die. So he called it a tax.
For right or wrong and regardless of how you feel...it was the constitution that guided that decision. And without the creativity of Justice Roberts, the act was unconstitutional.

Just thin about this....what if a law was passed that said you MUST buy only American made cars....and you MUST buy it at no age older than 18? It is the constitution that prevents such ridiculous laws being imposed on the American People.

You abject to health care as a right? I do not. Millions of others feel as I do.

healthcare is a product/service supplied by other people not a right,, unless of course you support slavery,,

Health care for all is slavery? I disagree.

what else do you call forced labor???

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days.

moderate

dont want civil war
dont want religious laws
laws based on logic, reason and necessity
government out of private life
police do their jobs without killing people in the streets
fair tax system
affordable education
affordable healthcare

limit immigration to people who;
speak enough english to get by
have employment ready for them
will not get goverment handouts

stop the war on pot
all citizens have equal rights and protections

be more small business friendly

Fair tax system, affordable education, affordable healthcare? What does any of that mean? Limit immigration because they can or can’t speak English?

Laws based on logic, reason and necessity?

Sounds like politics by feelings. That is where we already are.

those are leftwing policies,,

We are discussing how to make things work, not left or right. You are just going off into blame and politics. Move on.

making things work while violating the constitution is leftwing authoritarian politics,,

You do not want to have a discussion on what needs to be done. You just want to blame.

I am willing to discuss moving forward, what can be done to help people and our country to move on. Any one care to respond I will read.

And that's what passes for political conversation nowadays: Attack, deny, distort, accuse. Progress doesn't even appear to be a priority, independent thinking is all but frowned upon.

I saw something a while back that really concerned me: The notion that it has been so long since we communicated like rational adults that it's possible we've literally lost the capacity to do so. Perhaps collaborative communication is like a skill set or a muscle - use it or lose it.

If that's true, we're in serious trouble.

I think there are enough of us who really want to move on. I digressed about Kasich and apologize. Maybe he learned a hard lesson, too.

First the vaccine,ending the virus. Then we need a massive overhaul of our complete infrastructure. Most of you do not remember Ike and the Interstate. That made such a huge difference. But that was long ago. It will cost money but think what a difference it would make in jobs and decent wages.

what part of our infrastructure needs overhauled???

All of it Electric grid, sewer, internet, roads, bridges, high speed rail. Anything we use. If you have more please contribute.

Okay, so why does our complete infrastructure need a massive overhaul? I don't know where you live, but where I live, we've always done ongoing, routine maintenance and upgrades on those things. Hell, it makes a regular pain in the ass out of my commute, having to route around wherever the construction is at the moment. We didn't just install them decades ago and forget about them.

 

[Papageorgio]

I don’t go to big corporate stores, I do admit finding local mom and pops is getting tougher to find. I look for US products as much as possible and always ask stores if they have a product made in the USA. I’m not a China fan, they have lied to us many times over, lead in toys, drywall that was moldy, lying about the coronavirus. They don’t care about Americans, and will kill for the almighty dollar as they keep proving.

Reality check. Not all Americans do what you want me to believe you do.

Reality check, I don’t care what you believe.

Then stop wasting your time replying.

The premise of the thread was to discuss solutions, you are about insults and stirring up BS if people disagree with you. My wife shops Amazon and is pissed because I don’t chose to shop that way. I dislike Amazon, just like other box stores for the same reason you. You are just a typical partisan ass that thinks you know what everyone believes just by reading posts. You are shallow and really clueless about people.

 

[Cecilie1200]

democrats are moving too far left
republicans have gone too far right
i find myself appreciating rinos and dinos more these days
we need a third party for the majority of us who are moderates

I've largely given up on this idea, considering the stranglehold the two "major" parties have on our election system. Plus, if such a party can't appear NOW, as ridiculous and polarized as things are, one NEVER will.

What I'm hoping now is that one of the parties will wake up and realize that a majority of the country wants moderation and cooperation, and be the first to take advantage of that. The problem is that the wings have most of the energy, and therefore the influence.

I don't know what fixes this.

It is actually more simple than you realize.
The Constitution is not a living document. It is a guideline.
It has resulted in the development of a union
It has allowed the freeing of people in bondage
It has allowed for fair elections
It has allowed for a SCOTUS that makes monumental decisions
It has allowed for the right to vote for women
It has allowed for the right to vote for all Americans
It has allowed for equal rights for all Americans
It has allowed for 3 equal branches of government offering checks and balances.

Sure, we were imperfect as a country back in the 1700's....we were new, we had habits of our heritages.....but it is our constitution that FORCED us to right our wrongs.

So what fixes it? Let the constitution do its job.

It really isnt that difficult. Only to the politicians who are trying to get votes.

And THAT is the problem.

Let the Constitution do what? Mind explaining further?

Not to start an argument. What is considered moderate these days? Like for these topics:
abortion
healthcare
taxes
national defense
foreign policy at large
What is the moderate position on each?

Abortion is the closest to being a binary argument. The rest all exist along a continuum and are not binary.

And I think we've fallen into a trap, thinking that one side has to "win" on any given issue, and one side has to "lose".

How about both sides collaborating, innovating, and creating something NEW, like our Constitution? That way we all have skin in the game.

America used to be able to innovate, back when we were great.

I agree, progress is only made through compromise and collaboration. But, that's not really a stance it's just asking the current parties to talk to each other. I was more curious as to what are the political beliefs of a moderate. Usually when they are asked it's quite clear that they would more than fit into one party or the other.

I think there are a couple of characteristics, depending on the individual moderate. So:

• Some moderates have strong feelings on any given issue, but their opinions as a whole don't fit with one of the tribes. So, a moderate may be passionately pro choice and passionately pro lowering income taxes. Neither tribe, then, is a fit for them.
• Some moderates really do want to find some kind of middle ground on most issues. They believe that there are decent or fair arguments on both ends, and want to at least begin the conversation by finding shared views and going from there.
• Some moderates think that both tribes are narcissistic gasbags and would rather just approach each issue on its own merits, taking some ideas from column A, some from column B, and the rest from new ideas.

My two cents, anyway.

I don't think you have to be a 'moderate' to want to compromise. As a liberal, I'd rather get something rather than nothing.

But since this thread is about a moderate party, what is that exactly? How are a group of people who claim to be in the middle however their various opinions on a range of topics will individually slide from liberal to conservative leaning is supposed to make up a cohesive political party?

That I couldn't tell you, since we've never really had one. I think a glimpse of it came a few years ago when there was talk of a Kasich/Hickenlooper ticket.

But to your point, I think a party that was clearly committed to collaboration and new ideas would draw many people who didn't necessarily agree with its candidates on every issue. So the appeal would be more about general approach than specific positions.

Please do not build John Kasich into what he is not. He is far from moderate.

Lets see.
the constitution allowed for women to vote. It was only because of the constitution that were given the right to vote. I agree with the decision and I respect it.
The consitution allowed for the decision of Roe V Wade. I disagree with the decision, but I respect it.

You see, our constitution was written in a way where it allowed for debate and it allowed for majority decision and implementation of laws and rights.

Seems to be working well.

Albeit, there are those that say it is a living document and we must adjust to it.

To me? That is wrong. It is a document and we must apply it....not Obey it....that would be wrong....apply it. And that is what we do.

And it is working.

Good points but it only works when people stand up for rights. I think that is why many call it a living document.

We have three branches of government. 2 of them are elected and one is appointed by the executive branch...however...with the confirmation of the senate. Those elections are how people can stand up for their rights. But when people are voted in they still must adhere to the constitution as it is a guidance for legislative decisions made by those elected.
Sure, protests are good....and they allow the legislators to hesitate and reconsider....but it is the constitution that keeps them in check and not simply do what they want to do for votes, but instead so what the constitution has deemed best for the overall good.
I know...the left would love to toss the constitution. But without it? We would not have women voting, African Americans voting. abortion legalized. The ACLU pushing rights of Americans.
The constitution ensures we do the right thing and not do something that can be damaging.
A good example is the ACA. Justice Roberts was well aware that the constitution does not allow for forcing anyone to purchase something from the day they are born to the day they die. So he called it a tax.
For right or wrong and regardless of how you feel...it was the constitution that guided that decision. And without the creativity of Justice Roberts, the act was unconstitutional.

Just thin about this....what if a law was passed that said you MUST buy only American made cars....and you MUST buy it at no age older than 18? It is the constitution that prevents such ridiculous laws being imposed on the American People.

You abject to health care as a right? I do not. Millions of others feel as I do.

healthcare is a product/service supplied by other people not a right,, unless of course you support slavery,,

Health care for all is slavery? I disagree.

what else do you call forced labor???

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days.

moderate

dont want civil war
dont want religious laws
laws based on logic, reason and necessity
government out of private life
police do their jobs without killing people in the streets
fair tax system
affordable education
affordable healthcare

limit immigration to people who;
speak enough english to get by
have employment ready for them
will not get goverment handouts

stop the war on pot
all citizens have equal rights and protections

be more small business friendly

Fair tax system, affordable education, affordable healthcare? What does any of that mean? Limit immigration because they can or can’t speak English?

Laws based on logic, reason and necessity?

Sounds like politics by feelings. That is where we already are.

those are leftwing policies,,

We are discussing how to make things work, not left or right. You are just going off into blame and politics. Move on.

making things work while violating the constitution is leftwing authoritarian politics,,

You do not want to have a discussion on what needs to be done. You just want to blame.

I am willing to discuss moving forward, what can be done to help people and our country to move on. Any one care to respond I will read.

And that's what passes for political conversation nowadays: Attack, deny, distort, accuse. Progress doesn't even appear to be a priority, independent thinking is all but frowned upon.

I saw something a while back that really concerned me: The notion that it has been so long since we communicated like rational adults that it's possible we've literally lost the capacity to do so. Perhaps collaborative communication is like a skill set or a muscle - use it or lose it.

If that's true, we're in serious trouble.

I think there are enough of us who really want to move on. I digressed about Kasich and apologize. Maybe he learned a hard lesson, too.

First the vaccine,ending the virus. Then we need a massive overhaul of our complete infrastructure. Most of you do not remember Ike and the Interstate. That made such a huge difference. But that was long ago. It will cost money but think what a difference it would make in jobs and decent wages.

what part of our infrastructure needs overhauled???

All of it Electric grid, sewer, internet, roads, bridges, high speed rail. Anything we use. If you have more please contribute.

those are state and local issues not federal ones,, as per the constitution,,,

Federal shares the expense.

How do they do that?

I don't know how Mary thinks it happens, but with roads - for example - the US Dept. of Transportation gives states and localities money every year to go toward maintenance and upgrade of roadways, and then the local government in question is required to contribute its own money as well. If I remember correctly, the federal money comes through the Highway Trust Fund, which is funded by gasoline and diesel fuel taxes.

Utility companies are different, and how it's worked out depends on the utility in question and the state it's in. I don't know that the federal government contributes anything to sewer systems or Internet.

 

[progressive hunter]

democrats are moving too far left
republicans have gone too far right
i find myself appreciating rinos and dinos more these days
we need a third party for the majority of us who are moderates

I've largely given up on this idea, considering the stranglehold the two "major" parties have on our election system. Plus, if such a party can't appear NOW, as ridiculous and polarized as things are, one NEVER will.

What I'm hoping now is that one of the parties will wake up and realize that a majority of the country wants moderation and cooperation, and be the first to take advantage of that. The problem is that the wings have most of the energy, and therefore the influence.

I don't know what fixes this.

It is actually more simple than you realize.
The Constitution is not a living document. It is a guideline.
It has resulted in the development of a union
It has allowed the freeing of people in bondage
It has allowed for fair elections
It has allowed for a SCOTUS that makes monumental decisions
It has allowed for the right to vote for women
It has allowed for the right to vote for all Americans
It has allowed for equal rights for all Americans
It has allowed for 3 equal branches of government offering checks and balances.

Sure, we were imperfect as a country back in the 1700's....we were new, we had habits of our heritages.....but it is our constitution that FORCED us to right our wrongs.

So what fixes it? Let the constitution do its job.

It really isnt that difficult. Only to the politicians who are trying to get votes.

And THAT is the problem.

Let the Constitution do what? Mind explaining further?

Not to start an argument. What is considered moderate these days? Like for these topics:
abortion
healthcare
taxes
national defense
foreign policy at large
What is the moderate position on each?

Abortion is the closest to being a binary argument. The rest all exist along a continuum and are not binary.

And I think we've fallen into a trap, thinking that one side has to "win" on any given issue, and one side has to "lose".

How about both sides collaborating, innovating, and creating something NEW, like our Constitution? That way we all have skin in the game.

America used to be able to innovate, back when we were great.

I agree, progress is only made through compromise and collaboration. But, that's not really a stance it's just asking the current parties to talk to each other. I was more curious as to what are the political beliefs of a moderate. Usually when they are asked it's quite clear that they would more than fit into one party or the other.

I think there are a couple of characteristics, depending on the individual moderate. So:

• Some moderates have strong feelings on any given issue, but their opinions as a whole don't fit with one of the tribes. So, a moderate may be passionately pro choice and passionately pro lowering income taxes. Neither tribe, then, is a fit for them.
• Some moderates really do want to find some kind of middle ground on most issues. They believe that there are decent or fair arguments on both ends, and want to at least begin the conversation by finding shared views and going from there.
• Some moderates think that both tribes are narcissistic gasbags and would rather just approach each issue on its own merits, taking some ideas from column A, some from column B, and the rest from new ideas.

My two cents, anyway.

I don't think you have to be a 'moderate' to want to compromise. As a liberal, I'd rather get something rather than nothing.

But since this thread is about a moderate party, what is that exactly? How are a group of people who claim to be in the middle however their various opinions on a range of topics will individually slide from liberal to conservative leaning is supposed to make up a cohesive political party?

That I couldn't tell you, since we've never really had one. I think a glimpse of it came a few years ago when there was talk of a Kasich/Hickenlooper ticket.

But to your point, I think a party that was clearly committed to collaboration and new ideas would draw many people who didn't necessarily agree with its candidates on every issue. So the appeal would be more about general approach than specific positions.

Please do not build John Kasich into what he is not. He is far from moderate.

Lets see.
the constitution allowed for women to vote. It was only because of the constitution that were given the right to vote. I agree with the decision and I respect it.
The consitution allowed for the decision of Roe V Wade. I disagree with the decision, but I respect it.

You see, our constitution was written in a way where it allowed for debate and it allowed for majority decision and implementation of laws and rights.

Seems to be working well.

Albeit, there are those that say it is a living document and we must adjust to it.

To me? That is wrong. It is a document and we must apply it....not Obey it....that would be wrong....apply it. And that is what we do.

And it is working.

Good points but it only works when people stand up for rights. I think that is why many call it a living document.

We have three branches of government. 2 of them are elected and one is appointed by the executive branch...however...with the confirmation of the senate. Those elections are how people can stand up for their rights. But when people are voted in they still must adhere to the constitution as it is a guidance for legislative decisions made by those elected.
Sure, protests are good....and they allow the legislators to hesitate and reconsider....but it is the constitution that keeps them in check and not simply do what they want to do for votes, but instead so what the constitution has deemed best for the overall good.
I know...the left would love to toss the constitution. But without it? We would not have women voting, African Americans voting. abortion legalized. The ACLU pushing rights of Americans.
The constitution ensures we do the right thing and not do something that can be damaging.
A good example is the ACA. Justice Roberts was well aware that the constitution does not allow for forcing anyone to purchase something from the day they are born to the day they die. So he called it a tax.
For right or wrong and regardless of how you feel...it was the constitution that guided that decision. And without the creativity of Justice Roberts, the act was unconstitutional.

Just thin about this....what if a law was passed that said you MUST buy only American made cars....and you MUST buy it at no age older than 18? It is the constitution that prevents such ridiculous laws being imposed on the American People.

You abject to health care as a right? I do not. Millions of others feel as I do.

healthcare is a product/service supplied by other people not a right,, unless of course you support slavery,,

Health care for all is slavery? I disagree.

what else do you call forced labor???

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days.

moderate

dont want civil war
dont want religious laws
laws based on logic, reason and necessity
government out of private life
police do their jobs without killing people in the streets
fair tax system
affordable education
affordable healthcare

limit immigration to people who;
speak enough english to get by
have employment ready for them
will not get goverment handouts

stop the war on pot
all citizens have equal rights and protections

be more small business friendly

Fair tax system, affordable education, affordable healthcare? What does any of that mean? Limit immigration because they can or can’t speak English?

Laws based on logic, reason and necessity?

Sounds like politics by feelings. That is where we already are.

those are leftwing policies,,

We are discussing how to make things work, not left or right. You are just going off into blame and politics. Move on.

making things work while violating the constitution is leftwing authoritarian politics,,

You do not want to have a discussion on what needs to be done. You just want to blame.

I am willing to discuss moving forward, what can be done to help people and our country to move on. Any one care to respond I will read.

And that's what passes for political conversation nowadays: Attack, deny, distort, accuse. Progress doesn't even appear to be a priority, independent thinking is all but frowned upon.

I saw something a while back that really concerned me: The notion that it has been so long since we communicated like rational adults that it's possible we've literally lost the capacity to do so. Perhaps collaborative communication is like a skill set or a muscle - use it or lose it.

If that's true, we're in serious trouble.

I think there are enough of us who really want to move on. I digressed about Kasich and apologize. Maybe he learned a hard lesson, too.

First the vaccine,ending the virus. Then we need a massive overhaul of our complete infrastructure. Most of you do not remember Ike and the Interstate. That made such a huge difference. But that was long ago. It will cost money but think what a difference it would make in jobs and decent wages.

what part of our infrastructure needs overhauled???

All of it Electric grid, sewer, internet, roads, bridges, high speed rail. Anything we use. If you have more please contribute.

those are state and local issues not federal ones,, as per the constitution,,,

Federal shares the expense.

How do they do that?

I don't know how Mary thinks it happens, but with roads - for example - the US Dept. of Transportation gives states and localities money every year to go toward maintenance and upgrade of roadways, and then the local government in question is required to contribute its own money as well. If I remember correctly, the federal money comes through the Highway Trust Fund, which is funded by gasoline and diesel fuel taxes.

Utility companies are different, and how it's worked out depends on the utility in question and the state it's in. I don't know that the federal government contributes anything to sewer systems or Internet.

of course the feds take a cut for themselves before sending the money to the states,,

very inefficient of you ask me,,,

 

[Papageorgio]

democrats are moving too far left
republicans have gone too far right
i find myself appreciating rinos and dinos more these days
we need a third party for the majority of us who are moderates

I've largely given up on this idea, considering the stranglehold the two "major" parties have on our election system. Plus, if such a party can't appear NOW, as ridiculous and polarized as things are, one NEVER will.

What I'm hoping now is that one of the parties will wake up and realize that a majority of the country wants moderation and cooperation, and be the first to take advantage of that. The problem is that the wings have most of the energy, and therefore the influence.

I don't know what fixes this.

It is actually more simple than you realize.
The Constitution is not a living document. It is a guideline.
It has resulted in the development of a union
It has allowed the freeing of people in bondage
It has allowed for fair elections
It has allowed for a SCOTUS that makes monumental decisions
It has allowed for the right to vote for women
It has allowed for the right to vote for all Americans
It has allowed for equal rights for all Americans
It has allowed for 3 equal branches of government offering checks and balances.

Sure, we were imperfect as a country back in the 1700's....we were new, we had habits of our heritages.....but it is our constitution that FORCED us to right our wrongs.

So what fixes it? Let the constitution do its job.

It really isnt that difficult. Only to the politicians who are trying to get votes.

And THAT is the problem.

Let the Constitution do what? Mind explaining further?

Not to start an argument. What is considered moderate these days? Like for these topics:
abortion
healthcare
taxes
national defense
foreign policy at large
What is the moderate position on each?

Abortion is the closest to being a binary argument. The rest all exist along a continuum and are not binary.

And I think we've fallen into a trap, thinking that one side has to "win" on any given issue, and one side has to "lose".

How about both sides collaborating, innovating, and creating something NEW, like our Constitution? That way we all have skin in the game.

America used to be able to innovate, back when we were great.

I agree, progress is only made through compromise and collaboration. But, that's not really a stance it's just asking the current parties to talk to each other. I was more curious as to what are the political beliefs of a moderate. Usually when they are asked it's quite clear that they would more than fit into one party or the other.

I think there are a couple of characteristics, depending on the individual moderate. So:

• Some moderates have strong feelings on any given issue, but their opinions as a whole don't fit with one of the tribes. So, a moderate may be passionately pro choice and passionately pro lowering income taxes. Neither tribe, then, is a fit for them.
• Some moderates really do want to find some kind of middle ground on most issues. They believe that there are decent or fair arguments on both ends, and want to at least begin the conversation by finding shared views and going from there.
• Some moderates think that both tribes are narcissistic gasbags and would rather just approach each issue on its own merits, taking some ideas from column A, some from column B, and the rest from new ideas.

My two cents, anyway.

I don't think you have to be a 'moderate' to want to compromise. As a liberal, I'd rather get something rather than nothing.

But since this thread is about a moderate party, what is that exactly? How are a group of people who claim to be in the middle however their various opinions on a range of topics will individually slide from liberal to conservative leaning is supposed to make up a cohesive political party?

That I couldn't tell you, since we've never really had one. I think a glimpse of it came a few years ago when there was talk of a Kasich/Hickenlooper ticket.

But to your point, I think a party that was clearly committed to collaboration and new ideas would draw many people who didn't necessarily agree with its candidates on every issue. So the appeal would be more about general approach than specific positions.

Please do not build John Kasich into what he is not. He is far from moderate.

Lets see.
the constitution allowed for women to vote. It was only because of the constitution that were given the right to vote. I agree with the decision and I respect it.
The consitution allowed for the decision of Roe V Wade. I disagree with the decision, but I respect it.

You see, our constitution was written in a way where it allowed for debate and it allowed for majority decision and implementation of laws and rights.

Seems to be working well.

Albeit, there are those that say it is a living document and we must adjust to it.

To me? That is wrong. It is a document and we must apply it....not Obey it....that would be wrong....apply it. And that is what we do.

And it is working.

Good points but it only works when people stand up for rights. I think that is why many call it a living document.

We have three branches of government. 2 of them are elected and one is appointed by the executive branch...however...with the confirmation of the senate. Those elections are how people can stand up for their rights. But when people are voted in they still must adhere to the constitution as it is a guidance for legislative decisions made by those elected.
Sure, protests are good....and they allow the legislators to hesitate and reconsider....but it is the constitution that keeps them in check and not simply do what they want to do for votes, but instead so what the constitution has deemed best for the overall good.
I know...the left would love to toss the constitution. But without it? We would not have women voting, African Americans voting. abortion legalized. The ACLU pushing rights of Americans.
The constitution ensures we do the right thing and not do something that can be damaging.
A good example is the ACA. Justice Roberts was well aware that the constitution does not allow for forcing anyone to purchase something from the day they are born to the day they die. So he called it a tax.
For right or wrong and regardless of how you feel...it was the constitution that guided that decision. And without the creativity of Justice Roberts, the act was unconstitutional.

Just thin about this....what if a law was passed that said you MUST buy only American made cars....and you MUST buy it at no age older than 18? It is the constitution that prevents such ridiculous laws being imposed on the American People.

You abject to health care as a right? I do not. Millions of others feel as I do.

healthcare is a product/service supplied by other people not a right,, unless of course you support slavery,,

Health care for all is slavery? I disagree.

what else do you call forced labor???

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days.

moderate

dont want civil war
dont want religious laws
laws based on logic, reason and necessity
government out of private life
police do their jobs without killing people in the streets
fair tax system
affordable education
affordable healthcare

limit immigration to people who;
speak enough english to get by
have employment ready for them
will not get goverment handouts

stop the war on pot
all citizens have equal rights and protections

be more small business friendly

Fair tax system, affordable education, affordable healthcare? What does any of that mean? Limit immigration because they can or can’t speak English?

Laws based on logic, reason and necessity?

Sounds like politics by feelings. That is where we already are.

those are leftwing policies,,

We are discussing how to make things work, not left or right. You are just going off into blame and politics. Move on.

making things work while violating the constitution is leftwing authoritarian politics,,

You do not want to have a discussion on what needs to be done. You just want to blame.

I am willing to discuss moving forward, what can be done to help people and our country to move on. Any one care to respond I will read.

And that's what passes for political conversation nowadays: Attack, deny, distort, accuse. Progress doesn't even appear to be a priority, independent thinking is all but frowned upon.

I saw something a while back that really concerned me: The notion that it has been so long since we communicated like rational adults that it's possible we've literally lost the capacity to do so. Perhaps collaborative communication is like a skill set or a muscle - use it or lose it.

If that's true, we're in serious trouble.

I think there are enough of us who really want to move on. I digressed about Kasich and apologize. Maybe he learned a hard lesson, too.

First the vaccine,ending the virus. Then we need a massive overhaul of our complete infrastructure. Most of you do not remember Ike and the Interstate. That made such a huge difference. But that was long ago. It will cost money but think what a difference it would make in jobs and decent wages.

what part of our infrastructure needs overhauled???

All of it Electric grid, sewer, internet, roads, bridges, high speed rail. Anything we use. If you have more please contribute.

those are state and local issues not federal ones,, as per the constitution,,,

Federal shares the expense.

How do they do that?

I don't know how Mary thinks it happens, but with roads - for example - the US Dept. of Transportation gives states and localities money every year to go toward maintenance and upgrade of roadways, and then the local government in question is required to contribute its own money as well. If I remember correctly, the federal money comes through the Highway Trust Fund, which is funded by gasoline and diesel fuel taxes.

Utility companies are different, and how it's worked out depends on the utility in question and the state it's in. I don't know that the federal government contributes anything to sewer systems or Internet.

Feds collect taxes for the internet through taxes on phones and cable and satellite usage.

 

[MaryAnne11]

democrats are moving too far left
republicans have gone too far right
i find myself appreciating rinos and dinos more these days
we need a third party for the majority of us who are moderates

I've largely given up on this idea, considering the stranglehold the two "major" parties have on our election system. Plus, if such a party can't appear NOW, as ridiculous and polarized as things are, one NEVER will.

What I'm hoping now is that one of the parties will wake up and realize that a majority of the country wants moderation and cooperation, and be the first to take advantage of that. The problem is that the wings have most of the energy, and therefore the influence.

I don't know what fixes this.

It is actually more simple than you realize.
The Constitution is not a living document. It is a guideline.
It has resulted in the development of a union
It has allowed the freeing of people in bondage
It has allowed for fair elections
It has allowed for a SCOTUS that makes monumental decisions
It has allowed for the right to vote for women
It has allowed for the right to vote for all Americans
It has allowed for equal rights for all Americans
It has allowed for 3 equal branches of government offering checks and balances.

Sure, we were imperfect as a country back in the 1700's....we were new, we had habits of our heritages.....but it is our constitution that FORCED us to right our wrongs.

So what fixes it? Let the constitution do its job.

It really isnt that difficult. Only to the politicians who are trying to get votes.

And THAT is the problem.

Let the Constitution do what? Mind explaining further?

Not to start an argument. What is considered moderate these days? Like for these topics:
abortion
healthcare
taxes
national defense
foreign policy at large
What is the moderate position on each?

Abortion is the closest to being a binary argument. The rest all exist along a continuum and are not binary.

And I think we've fallen into a trap, thinking that one side has to "win" on any given issue, and one side has to "lose".

How about both sides collaborating, innovating, and creating something NEW, like our Constitution? That way we all have skin in the game.

America used to be able to innovate, back when we were great.

I agree, progress is only made through compromise and collaboration. But, that's not really a stance it's just asking the current parties to talk to each other. I was more curious as to what are the political beliefs of a moderate. Usually when they are asked it's quite clear that they would more than fit into one party or the other.

I think there are a couple of characteristics, depending on the individual moderate. So:

• Some moderates have strong feelings on any given issue, but their opinions as a whole don't fit with one of the tribes. So, a moderate may be passionately pro choice and passionately pro lowering income taxes. Neither tribe, then, is a fit for them.
• Some moderates really do want to find some kind of middle ground on most issues. They believe that there are decent or fair arguments on both ends, and want to at least begin the conversation by finding shared views and going from there.
• Some moderates think that both tribes are narcissistic gasbags and would rather just approach each issue on its own merits, taking some ideas from column A, some from column B, and the rest from new ideas.

My two cents, anyway.

I don't think you have to be a 'moderate' to want to compromise. As a liberal, I'd rather get something rather than nothing.

But since this thread is about a moderate party, what is that exactly? How are a group of people who claim to be in the middle however their various opinions on a range of topics will individually slide from liberal to conservative leaning is supposed to make up a cohesive political party?

That I couldn't tell you, since we've never really had one. I think a glimpse of it came a few years ago when there was talk of a Kasich/Hickenlooper ticket.

But to your point, I think a party that was clearly committed to collaboration and new ideas would draw many people who didn't necessarily agree with its candidates on every issue. So the appeal would be more about general approach than specific positions.

Please do not build John Kasich into what he is not. He is far from moderate.

Lets see.
the constitution allowed for women to vote. It was only because of the constitution that were given the right to vote. I agree with the decision and I respect it.
The consitution allowed for the decision of Roe V Wade. I disagree with the decision, but I respect it.

You see, our constitution was written in a way where it allowed for debate and it allowed for majority decision and implementation of laws and rights.

Seems to be working well.

Albeit, there are those that say it is a living document and we must adjust to it.

To me? That is wrong. It is a document and we must apply it....not Obey it....that would be wrong....apply it. And that is what we do.

And it is working.

Good points but it only works when people stand up for rights. I think that is why many call it a living document.

We have three branches of government. 2 of them are elected and one is appointed by the executive branch...however...with the confirmation of the senate. Those elections are how people can stand up for their rights. But when people are voted in they still must adhere to the constitution as it is a guidance for legislative decisions made by those elected.
Sure, protests are good....and they allow the legislators to hesitate and reconsider....but it is the constitution that keeps them in check and not simply do what they want to do for votes, but instead so what the constitution has deemed best for the overall good.
I know...the left would love to toss the constitution. But without it? We would not have women voting, African Americans voting. abortion legalized. The ACLU pushing rights of Americans.
The constitution ensures we do the right thing and not do something that can be damaging.
A good example is the ACA. Justice Roberts was well aware that the constitution does not allow for forcing anyone to purchase something from the day they are born to the day they die. So he called it a tax.
For right or wrong and regardless of how you feel...it was the constitution that guided that decision. And without the creativity of Justice Roberts, the act was unconstitutional.

Just thin about this....what if a law was passed that said you MUST buy only American made cars....and you MUST buy it at no age older than 18? It is the constitution that prevents such ridiculous laws being imposed on the American People.

You abject to health care as a right? I do not. Millions of others feel as I do.

healthcare is a product/service supplied by other people not a right,, unless of course you support slavery,,

Health care for all is slavery? I disagree.

what else do you call forced labor???

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days.

moderate

dont want civil war
dont want religious laws
laws based on logic, reason and necessity
government out of private life
police do their jobs without killing people in the streets
fair tax system
affordable education
affordable healthcare

limit immigration to people who;
speak enough english to get by
have employment ready for them
will not get goverment handouts

stop the war on pot
all citizens have equal rights and protections

be more small business friendly

Fair tax system, affordable education, affordable healthcare? What does any of that mean? Limit immigration because they can or can’t speak English?

Laws based on logic, reason and necessity?

Sounds like politics by feelings. That is where we already are.

those are leftwing policies,,

We are discussing how to make things work, not left or right. You are just going off into blame and politics. Move on.

making things work while violating the constitution is leftwing authoritarian politics,,

You do not want to have a discussion on what needs to be done. You just want to blame.

I am willing to discuss moving forward, what can be done to help people and our country to move on. Any one care to respond I will read.

And that's what passes for political conversation nowadays: Attack, deny, distort, accuse. Progress doesn't even appear to be a priority, independent thinking is all but frowned upon.

I saw something a while back that really concerned me: The notion that it has been so long since we communicated like rational adults that it's possible we've literally lost the capacity to do so. Perhaps collaborative communication is like a skill set or a muscle - use it or lose it.

If that's true, we're in serious trouble.

I think there are enough of us who really want to move on. I digressed about Kasich and apologize. Maybe he learned a hard lesson, too.

First the vaccine,ending the virus. Then we need a massive overhaul of our complete infrastructure. Most of you do not remember Ike and the Interstate. That made such a huge difference. But that was long ago. It will cost money but think what a difference it would make in jobs and decent wages.

what part of our infrastructure needs overhauled???

All of it Electric grid, sewer, internet, roads, bridges, high speed rail. Anything we use. If you have more please contribute.

Okay, so why does our complete infrastructure need a massive overhaul? I don't know where you live, but where I live, we've always done ongoing, routine maintenance and upgrades on those things. Hell, it makes a regular pain in the ass out of my commute, having to route around wherever the construction is at the moment. We didn't just install them decades ago and forget about them.

You think roads are the only infrastructure? We have sewers and pipelines all over the country that are decaying. 70 and 80 year old bridges being replaced piecemeal.

You really need to research this subject. Our electric grid is outdated, so is out internet system. You are referring to patchwork.
I live 2 blocks from an Interstate that stretches across the country. A few miles from the Crossroads of the Country. They have been patching and fixing since Dwight Eisenhower built the interstate.

 

[Billiejeens]

democrats are moving too far left
republicans have gone too far right
i find myself appreciating rinos and dinos more these days
we need a third party for the majority of us who are moderates

I've largely given up on this idea, considering the stranglehold the two "major" parties have on our election system. Plus, if such a party can't appear NOW, as ridiculous and polarized as things are, one NEVER will.

What I'm hoping now is that one of the parties will wake up and realize that a majority of the country wants moderation and cooperation, and be the first to take advantage of that. The problem is that the wings have most of the energy, and therefore the influence.

I don't know what fixes this.

It is actually more simple than you realize.
The Constitution is not a living document. It is a guideline.
It has resulted in the development of a union
It has allowed the freeing of people in bondage
It has allowed for fair elections
It has allowed for a SCOTUS that makes monumental decisions
It has allowed for the right to vote for women
It has allowed for the right to vote for all Americans
It has allowed for equal rights for all Americans
It has allowed for 3 equal branches of government offering checks and balances.

Sure, we were imperfect as a country back in the 1700's....we were new, we had habits of our heritages.....but it is our constitution that FORCED us to right our wrongs.

So what fixes it? Let the constitution do its job.

It really isnt that difficult. Only to the politicians who are trying to get votes.

And THAT is the problem.

Let the Constitution do what? Mind explaining further?

Not to start an argument. What is considered moderate these days? Like for these topics:
abortion
healthcare
taxes
national defense
foreign policy at large
What is the moderate position on each?

Abortion is the closest to being a binary argument. The rest all exist along a continuum and are not binary.

And I think we've fallen into a trap, thinking that one side has to "win" on any given issue, and one side has to "lose".

How about both sides collaborating, innovating, and creating something NEW, like our Constitution? That way we all have skin in the game.

America used to be able to innovate, back when we were great.

I agree, progress is only made through compromise and collaboration. But, that's not really a stance it's just asking the current parties to talk to each other. I was more curious as to what are the political beliefs of a moderate. Usually when they are asked it's quite clear that they would more than fit into one party or the other.

I think there are a couple of characteristics, depending on the individual moderate. So:

• Some moderates have strong feelings on any given issue, but their opinions as a whole don't fit with one of the tribes. So, a moderate may be passionately pro choice and passionately pro lowering income taxes. Neither tribe, then, is a fit for them.
• Some moderates really do want to find some kind of middle ground on most issues. They believe that there are decent or fair arguments on both ends, and want to at least begin the conversation by finding shared views and going from there.
• Some moderates think that both tribes are narcissistic gasbags and would rather just approach each issue on its own merits, taking some ideas from column A, some from column B, and the rest from new ideas.

My two cents, anyway.

I don't think you have to be a 'moderate' to want to compromise. As a liberal, I'd rather get something rather than nothing.

But since this thread is about a moderate party, what is that exactly? How are a group of people who claim to be in the middle however their various opinions on a range of topics will individually slide from liberal to conservative leaning is supposed to make up a cohesive political party?

That I couldn't tell you, since we've never really had one. I think a glimpse of it came a few years ago when there was talk of a Kasich/Hickenlooper ticket.

But to your point, I think a party that was clearly committed to collaboration and new ideas would draw many people who didn't necessarily agree with its candidates on every issue. So the appeal would be more about general approach than specific positions.

Please do not build John Kasich into what he is not. He is far from moderate.

Lets see.
the constitution allowed for women to vote. It was only because of the constitution that were given the right to vote. I agree with the decision and I respect it.
The consitution allowed for the decision of Roe V Wade. I disagree with the decision, but I respect it.

You see, our constitution was written in a way where it allowed for debate and it allowed for majority decision and implementation of laws and rights.

Seems to be working well.

Albeit, there are those that say it is a living document and we must adjust to it.

To me? That is wrong. It is a document and we must apply it....not Obey it....that would be wrong....apply it. And that is what we do.

And it is working.

Good points but it only works when people stand up for rights. I think that is why many call it a living document.

We have three branches of government. 2 of them are elected and one is appointed by the executive branch...however...with the confirmation of the senate. Those elections are how people can stand up for their rights. But when people are voted in they still must adhere to the constitution as it is a guidance for legislative decisions made by those elected.
Sure, protests are good....and they allow the legislators to hesitate and reconsider....but it is the constitution that keeps them in check and not simply do what they want to do for votes, but instead so what the constitution has deemed best for the overall good.
I know...the left would love to toss the constitution. But without it? We would not have women voting, African Americans voting. abortion legalized. The ACLU pushing rights of Americans.
The constitution ensures we do the right thing and not do something that can be damaging.
A good example is the ACA. Justice Roberts was well aware that the constitution does not allow for forcing anyone to purchase something from the day they are born to the day they die. So he called it a tax.
For right or wrong and regardless of how you feel...it was the constitution that guided that decision. And without the creativity of Justice Roberts, the act was unconstitutional.

Just thin about this....what if a law was passed that said you MUST buy only American made cars....and you MUST buy it at no age older than 18? It is the constitution that prevents such ridiculous laws being imposed on the American People.

You abject to health care as a right? I do not. Millions of others feel as I do.

healthcare is a product/service supplied by other people not a right,, unless of course you support slavery,,

Health care for all is slavery? I disagree.

what else do you call forced labor???

You're gong to have to define what it is to be moderate these days.

moderate

dont want civil war
dont want religious laws
laws based on logic, reason and necessity
government out of private life
police do their jobs without killing people in the streets
fair tax system
affordable education
affordable healthcare

limit immigration to people who;
speak enough english to get by
have employment ready for them
will not get goverment handouts

stop the war on pot
all citizens have equal rights and protections

be more small business friendly

Fair tax system, affordable education, affordable healthcare? What does any of that mean? Limit immigration because they can or can’t speak English?

Laws based on logic, reason and necessity?

Sounds like politics by feelings. That is where we already are.

those are leftwing policies,,

We are discussing how to make things work, not left or right. You are just going off into blame and politics. Move on.

making things work while violating the constitution is leftwing authoritarian politics,,

You do not want to have a discussion on what needs to be done. You just want to blame.

I am willing to discuss moving forward, what can be done to help people and our country to move on. Any one care to respond I will read.

And that's what passes for political conversation nowadays: Attack, deny, distort, accuse. Progress doesn't even appear to be a priority, independent thinking is all but frowned upon.

I saw something a while back that really concerned me: The notion that it has been so long since we communicated like rational adults that it's possible we've literally lost the capacity to do so. Perhaps collaborative communication is like a skill set or a muscle - use it or lose it.

If that's true, we're in serious trouble.

I think there are enough of us who really want to move on. I digressed about Kasich and apologize. Maybe he learned a hard lesson, too.

First the vaccine,ending the virus. Then we need a massive overhaul of our complete infrastructure. Most of you do not remember Ike and the Interstate. That made such a huge difference. But that was long ago. It will cost money but think what a difference it would make in jobs and decent wages.

what part of our infrastructure needs overhauled???

All of it Electric grid, sewer, internet, roads, bridges, high speed rail. Anything we use. If you have more please contribute.

those are state and local issues not federal ones,, as per the constitution,,,

Federal shares the expense.

How do they do that?

I don't know how Mary thinks it happens, but with roads - for example - the US Dept. of Transportation gives states and localities money every year to go toward maintenance and upgrade of roadways, and then the local government in question is required to contribute its own money as well. If I remember correctly, the federal money comes through the Highway Trust Fund, which is funded by gasoline and diesel fuel taxes.

Utility companies are different, and how it's worked out depends on the utility in question and the state it's in. I don't know that the federal government contributes anything to sewer systems or Internet.

of course the feds take a cut for themselves before sending the money to the states,,

very inefficient of you ask me,,,

They are bookies.