a new party

MaryAnne11

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2016
Messages
1,887
Reaction score
671
Points
200
We need Government for the common good, we all know that.
 

MaryAnne11

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2016
Messages
1,887
Reaction score
671
Points
200
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.
 

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
79,415
Reaction score
23,730
Points
2,210
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
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.
I didn't say he was a moderate. The ticket balances itself out.
 

SC Patriot

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2020
Messages
971
Reaction score
605
Points
873
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.
 

MaryAnne11

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2016
Messages
1,887
Reaction score
671
Points
200
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.
I didn't say he was a moderate. The ticket balances itself out.
Sorry, Mac, I have good reason for disliking Kasich. His first action was to try and kill Teachers Unions. We beat him back at the polls killing his bill. Then for 8 years he gutted public schools to give money to his friends charter schools. There was scandal after scandal. The last was a 28 million dollar online Charter School that is still in court.
 

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
79,415
Reaction score
23,730
Points
2,210
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
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.
I didn't say he was a moderate. The ticket balances itself out.
Sorry, Mac, I have good reason for disliking Kasich. His first action was to try and kill Teachers Unions. We beat him back at the polls killing his bill. Then for 8 years he gutted public schools to give money to his friends charter schools. There was scandal after scandal. The last was a 28 million dollar online Charter School that is still in court.
I get it. I just mean that the idea of a balanced ticket would be attractive to many in this context.
 

MaryAnne11

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2016
Messages
1,887
Reaction score
671
Points
200
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.
 

Votto

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
26,863
Reaction score
10,113
Points
900
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
might I suggest the constitution party,,,

if we hadnt abandoned the constitution we wouldnt have the problems we have,,,
The Constitution?:

But that is hard right wing extremism.
 

progressive hunter

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
24,638
Reaction score
10,342
Points
950
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.
there is nothing living about it,, its written on simple english and only dishonest people with ill intent see it otherwise,,
 

progressive hunter

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
24,638
Reaction score
10,342
Points
950
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
might I suggest the constitution party,,,

if we hadnt abandoned the constitution we wouldnt have the problems we have,,,
The Constitution?:

But that is hard right wing extremism.
I disagree,,
 

MaryAnne11

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2016
Messages
1,887
Reaction score
671
Points
200
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.
I didn't say he was a moderate. The ticket balances itself out.
Sorry, Mac, I have good reason for disliking Kasich. His first action was to try and kill Teachers Unions. We beat him back at the polls killing his bill. Then for 8 years he gutted public schools to give money to his friends charter schools. There was scandal after scandal. The last was a 28 million dollar online Charter School that is still in court.
I get it. I just mean that the idea of a balanced ticket would be attractive to many in this context.
I see your point, just stated my objections being closer to the subject.

What is the most important thing we need after we get the vaccines and COVID under control? Where do we start?
 

Billiejeens

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
13,608
Reaction score
7,464
Points
995
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.
Tru Dat

He turned out to be a left wing loon.
 

MaryAnne11

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2016
Messages
1,887
Reaction score
671
Points
200
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.
there is nothing living about it,, its written on simple english and only dishonest people with ill intent see it otherwise,,
You have that right, I simply see it different. The world changes, we change, nothing is static.
 

progressive hunter

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
24,638
Reaction score
10,342
Points
950
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.
there is nothing living about it,, its written on simple english and only dishonest people with ill intent see it otherwise,,
You have that right, I simply see it different. The world changes, we change, nothing is static.
and thats why the constitution has a process for changing it,,,
 

Billiejeens

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
13,608
Reaction score
7,464
Points
995
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.
there is nothing living about it,, its written on simple english and only dishonest people with ill intent see it otherwise,,
You have that right, I simply see it different. The world changes, we change, nothing is static.
It came with Instructions on how to update it as needed.
It wasn't to simply read into it what the Scotus wanted.
 

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
79,415
Reaction score
23,730
Points
2,210
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
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.
I didn't say he was a moderate. The ticket balances itself out.
Sorry, Mac, I have good reason for disliking Kasich. His first action was to try and kill Teachers Unions. We beat him back at the polls killing his bill. Then for 8 years he gutted public schools to give money to his friends charter schools. There was scandal after scandal. The last was a 28 million dollar online Charter School that is still in court.
I get it. I just mean that the idea of a balanced ticket would be attractive to many in this context.
I see your point, just stated my objections being closer to the subject.

What is the most important thing we need after we get the vaccines and COVID under control? Where do we start?
Sometimes I think it could be started at a grass roots level, and sometimes I think it would require a push by a high-profile person or people. Somebody brave enough to piss off a lot of people off at the expense of their own social and/or professional standing. We're such a celebrity-driven culture, maybe it would take a few well-known people to stand up.

I actually think that Biden has the capacity to play a role in this, at least theoretically. He's old school, he was around when Reagan worked with Tip O'Neill. There have been some whispers that he might include Republicans in the cabinet or other key positions.

Short answer, I don't know. But I'll remain hopeful, for our kids' sake.
 

SC Patriot

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2020
Messages
971
Reaction score
605
Points
873
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.
 
OP
A

anynameyouwish

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2018
Messages
5,921
Reaction score
1,462
Points
170
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.

the left would love to toss the constitution?

not sure there is much evidence of that.

and who do you consider “left”?
dolly parton?

meanwhile there is tons of evidence that the RIGHT would rewrite the constitution, insist it is a christian document, and use it to create a theocracy that denies rights and protections to gays, atheists, nonchristian religions...

and the dominionists would BAN evolution.....by their own admission...
 
OP
A

anynameyouwish

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2018
Messages
5,921
Reaction score
1,462
Points
170
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.
what if a law was passed that you must be a christian or you lose your rights?
 

SC Patriot

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2020
Messages
971
Reaction score
605
Points
873
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.
I didn't say he was a moderate. The ticket balances itself out.
Sorry, Mac, I have good reason for disliking Kasich. His first action was to try and kill Teachers Unions. We beat him back at the polls killing his bill. Then for 8 years he gutted public schools to give money to his friends charter schools. There was scandal after scandal. The last was a 28 million dollar online Charter School that is still in court.
I get it. I just mean that the idea of a balanced ticket would be attractive to many in this context.
I see your point, just stated my objections being closer to the subject.

What is the most important thing we need after we get the vaccines and COVID under control? Where do we start?
Sometimes I think it could be started at a grass roots level, and sometimes I think it would require a push by a high-profile person or people. Somebody brave enough to piss off a lot of people off at the expense of their own social and/or professional standing. We're such a celebrity-driven culture, maybe it would take a few well-known people to stand up.

I actually think that Biden has the capacity to play a role in this, at least theoretically. He's old school, he was around when Reagan worked with Tip O'Neill. There have been some whispers that he might include Republicans in the cabinet or other key positions.

Short answer, I don't know. But I'll remain hopeful, for our kids' sake.
Like it or not...Trump didnt care if he pissed off the media, the opposite party, members of his own party, other countries in the world. He did what he beleived best regardless of how it affected his political or social standing.
Now, you may not agree with his results taking that kind of position. I happened to. But one thing for sure. He did what he deemed best regardless of how high profile people responded.
Do I believe iden has that in him? Honest? No. He refused to commit to a single item on the agenda other than "undoing" what Trump has done.

Bet he doesnt tear down the 420 miles of wall.

Bet he doesnt make a "national shut down" due to corona virus.
Bet he doesnt pack the court.
Bet he doesnt sign on to ending the filibuster
Bet he doesnt agree to national defunding of the police.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top