a new party

[anynameyouwish]

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?

Faith and politics are 2 different things.

ok

so people can have their faith and not use politics to enforce their religion on everyone.

 

[HappyJoy]

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

moderate is supporting the constitution as written,,,

What you really mean is to interpret the Constitution as believed by conservatives. Doesn't sound moderate to me.

Only insofar as what conservatives believe is what's actually written. And how can you say it "doesn't sound moderate to you", when you just got done telling us you have no idea what moderate means? Do you even listen to yourself?

I get it, conservatives think they are moderate. Enjoy your day.

and they believe anyone who isnt lock step loons like them must be leftwing marxists.

Pretty much. By the way, this could have been a good conversation about moderation, extremism and compromise but well, look what they did to your thread.

 

[SC Patriot]

republicans have gone too far right

How so? Which specific policies do you consider "too far right"?

Pulling us out of the Paris Climate agreement
Kids in cages
stuff like that.

So Obama is to far right?

Obama didn't rip kids from their families and lock them up for months only to lose them. The Obama policy was to temporarily hold kids who showed up at the border without family and then hand them over to HHS.

Ahhh....Obama simply held kids temporarily and humanely handed them over to HHS.
Trump locked them up and had HHS grab them by their shackles and dragged them by their hair.

Such a pathetic response.

 

[HappyJoy]

republicans have gone too far right

How so? Which specific policies do you consider "too far right"?

Note how anynameyouwish Mac1958 HappyJoy ignore your simple question...why you ask?
Because they can’t give you an honest rational answer.
They hate that conservatives remain committed to preserving and protecting American history, traditions, values and laws.
What they really mean is;
“why do Conservatives resist and denounce our push to CHANGE America into the anything goes, no boundaries, commie-lite shithole we seek, why don’t they want all of America to become Mexifornia / Loon York?”

Ripping apart kids from their families, locking them up for months only to eventually permanently separate them from their parent. I don't think that is a moderate view point.

“RIPPING”
“TEARING”
“PRYING”
“LOCKING”
Hahaha...You tolerant triggered weirdos are hard to take serious when you roll with the heavy dramatics.
To assess your credibility answer me this; what distinction do you make between the Super Negroe’s “CAGE THEM UP” policy and Trumps cage policy?
Also, have you ever thought about the causation principle as it relates to this issue? Have you ever ONCE stated your displeasure with the filthy wetbacks using their ‘children’ to commit crimes against America?
Thanks in advance....again, just making sure you’re credible, reasonable and all.

You don't know the difference between Trump and Obama?

Obama's policy was to temporarily detain minors not accompanied by their parents for 72 hours before sending them to HHS. Not, hold them for months and then losing contact with their families. So, yeah, they were ripped from their families. I'm not sure why you're going to pretend to care.

 

[SC Patriot]

republicans have gone too far right

How so? Which specific policies do you consider "too far right"?

Note how anynameyouwish Mac1958 HappyJoy ignore your simple question...why you ask?
Because they can’t give you an honest rational answer.
They hate that conservatives remain committed to preserving and protecting American history, traditions, values and laws.
What they really mean is;
“why do Conservatives resist and denounce our push to CHANGE America into the anything goes, no boundaries, commie-lite shithole we seek, why don’t they want all of America to become Mexifornia / Loon York?”

Ripping apart kids from their families, locking them up for months only to eventually permanently separate them from their parent. I don't think that is a moderate view point.

“RIPPING”
“TEARING”
“PRYING”
“LOCKING”
Hahaha...You tolerant triggered weirdos are hard to take serious when you roll with the heavy dramatics.
To assess your credibility answer me this; what distinction do you make between the Super Negroe’s “CAGE THEM UP” policy and Trumps cage policy?
Also, have you ever thought about the causation principle as it relates to this issue? Have you ever ONCE stated your displeasure with the filthy wetbacks using their ‘children’ to commit crimes against America?
Thanks in advance....again, just making sure you’re credible, reasonable and all.

You don't know the difference between Trump and Obama?

Obama's policy was to temporarily detain minors not accompanied by their parents for 72 hours before sending them to HHS. Not, hold them for months and then losing contact with their families. So, yeah, they were ripped from their families. I'm not sure why you're going to pretend to care.

I guess you watch Rachel Maddow.

There goes your credibility.

 

[kaz]

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

moderate is supporting the constitution as written,,,

What you really mean is to interpret the Constitution as believed by conservatives. Doesn't sound moderate to me.

Only insofar as what conservatives believe is what's actually written. And how can you say it "doesn't sound moderate to you", when you just got done telling us you have no idea what moderate means? Do you even listen to yourself?

I get it, conservatives think they are moderate. Enjoy your day.

and they believe anyone who isnt lock step loons like them must be leftwing marxists.

Pretty much. By the way, this could have been a good conversation about moderation, extremism and compromise but well, look what they did to your thread.

It's hilarious that you see yourself as moderate

 

[HappyJoy]

republicans have gone too far right

How so? Which specific policies do you consider "too far right"?

Note how anynameyouwish Mac1958 HappyJoy ignore your simple question...why you ask?
Because they can’t give you an honest rational answer.
They hate that conservatives remain committed to preserving and protecting American history, traditions, values and laws.
What they really mean is;
“why do Conservatives resist and denounce our push to CHANGE America into the anything goes, no boundaries, commie-lite shithole we seek, why don’t they want all of America to become Mexifornia / Loon York?”

Ripping apart kids from their families, locking them up for months only to eventually permanently separate them from their parent. I don't think that is a moderate view point.

“RIPPING”
“TEARING”
“PRYING”
“LOCKING”
Hahaha...You tolerant triggered weirdos are hard to take serious when you roll with the heavy dramatics.
To assess your credibility answer me this; what distinction do you make between the Super Negroe’s “CAGE THEM UP” policy and Trumps cage policy?
Also, have you ever thought about the causation principle as it relates to this issue? Have you ever ONCE stated your displeasure with the filthy wetbacks using their ‘children’ to commit crimes against America?
Thanks in advance....again, just making sure you’re credible, reasonable and all.

You don't know the difference between Trump and Obama?

Obama's policy was to temporarily detain minors not accompanied by their parents for 72 hours before sending them to HHS. Not, hold them for months and then losing contact with their families. So, yeah, they were ripped from their families. I'm not sure why you're going to pretend to care.

I guess you watch Rachel Maddow.

There goes your credibility.

This is getting a little off topic but feel free to prove what I got wrong.

 

[HappyJoy]

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

moderate is supporting the constitution as written,,,

What you really mean is to interpret the Constitution as believed by conservatives. Doesn't sound moderate to me.

Only insofar as what conservatives believe is what's actually written. And how can you say it "doesn't sound moderate to you", when you just got done telling us you have no idea what moderate means? Do you even listen to yourself?

I get it, conservatives think they are moderate. Enjoy your day.

and they believe anyone who isnt lock step loons like them must be leftwing marxists.

Pretty much. By the way, this could have been a good conversation about moderation, extremism and compromise but well, look what they did to your thread.

It's hilarious that you see yourself as moderate

It's hilarious that you think that's what I said.

 

[HappyJoy]

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

moderate is supporting the constitution as written,,,

What you really mean is to interpret the Constitution as believed by conservatives. Doesn't sound moderate to me.

Only insofar as what conservatives believe is what's actually written. And how can you say it "doesn't sound moderate to you", when you just got done telling us you have no idea what moderate means? Do you even listen to yourself?

I get it, conservatives think they are moderate. Enjoy your day.

Conservatives are conservatives. They dont think they are anything. We live by an ideology that works well for us, not by a definition.

Is that your definition?

what part of "not by definition" did you not get?

The part where you define what a conservative is.

 

[SC Patriot]

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

moderate is supporting the constitution as written,,,

What you really mean is to interpret the Constitution as believed by conservatives. Doesn't sound moderate to me.

Only insofar as what conservatives believe is what's actually written. And how can you say it "doesn't sound moderate to you", when you just got done telling us you have no idea what moderate means? Do you even listen to yourself?

I get it, conservatives think they are moderate. Enjoy your day.

and they believe anyone who isnt lock step loons like them must be leftwing marxists.

Pretty much. By the way, this could have been a good conversation about moderation, extremism and compromise but well, look what they did to your thread.

It's hilarious that you see yourself as moderate

Not hilarious. A pathetic individual who finds the only way to gain credibility is to identify himself/herself as something he/ she isn't.
I see it all the time.
I love those ones who say "I am a staunch conservative but I changed my vote to Biden"

I can see a staunch conservative not want to vote for Trump....but I could never see one voting for Obama. Most, such as George HW Bush would simply sit this one out.

They come and go.

 

[Papageorgio]

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

moderate is supporting the constitution as written,,,

What you really mean is to interpret the Constitution as believed by conservatives. Doesn't sound moderate to me.

Only insofar as what conservatives believe is what's actually written. And how can you say it "doesn't sound moderate to you", when you just got done telling us you have no idea what moderate means? Do you even listen to yourself?

I get it, conservatives think they are moderate. Enjoy your day.

and they believe anyone who isnt lock step loons like them must be leftwing marxists.

And the left is the same. Two peas in a pod and really no different. There are calls from the left that want to lock up or punish Trump supporters.

We need a third party, however your idea is a moderate version of the left, nothing much center about your positions.

 

[SC Patriot]

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

moderate is supporting the constitution as written,,,

What you really mean is to interpret the Constitution as believed by conservatives. Doesn't sound moderate to me.

Only insofar as what conservatives believe is what's actually written. And how can you say it "doesn't sound moderate to you", when you just got done telling us you have no idea what moderate means? Do you even listen to yourself?

I get it, conservatives think they are moderate. Enjoy your day.

Conservatives are conservatives. They dont think they are anything. We live by an ideology that works well for us, not by a definition.

Is that your definition?

what part of "not by definition" did you not get?

The part where you define what a conservative is.

I guess it is too deep for you.
We do not define ourselves. With live by an ideology.
I know conservatives that are anti gay marriage. I am not. We are both conservatives as it pertains to how we live our OWN lives.
Sorry if it is something you cant comprehend. I get it.

 

[kaz]

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

moderate is supporting the constitution as written,,,

What you really mean is to interpret the Constitution as believed by conservatives. Doesn't sound moderate to me.

Only insofar as what conservatives believe is what's actually written. And how can you say it "doesn't sound moderate to you", when you just got done telling us you have no idea what moderate means? Do you even listen to yourself?

I get it, conservatives think they are moderate. Enjoy your day.

and they believe anyone who isnt lock step loons like them must be leftwing marxists.

Pretty much. By the way, this could have been a good conversation about moderation, extremism and compromise but well, look what they did to your thread.

It's hilarious that you see yourself as moderate

It's hilarious that you think that's what I said.

It's hilarious that you see yourself as moderate

 

[HappyJoy]

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

moderate is supporting the constitution as written,,,

What you really mean is to interpret the Constitution as believed by conservatives. Doesn't sound moderate to me.

Only insofar as what conservatives believe is what's actually written. And how can you say it "doesn't sound moderate to you", when you just got done telling us you have no idea what moderate means? Do you even listen to yourself?

I get it, conservatives think they are moderate. Enjoy your day.

and they believe anyone who isnt lock step loons like them must be leftwing marxists.

Pretty much. By the way, this could have been a good conversation about moderation, extremism and compromise but well, look what they did to your thread.

It's hilarious that you see yourself as moderate

It's hilarious that you think that's what I said.

It's hilarious that you see yourself as moderate

I don't, I'm not sure what your problem is but maybe go back and read my post.

 

[Papageorgio]

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

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

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

I don't know what fixes this.

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

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

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

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

And THAT is the problem.

Let the Constitution do what? Mind explaining further?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My two cents, anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems to be working well.

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

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

And it is working.

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

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

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

what if a law was passed that you must be a christian or you lose your rights?

Faith and politics are 2 different things.

ok

so people can have their faith and not use politics to enforce their religion on everyone.

Where is that being done now?

 

[MaryAnne11]

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

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

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

I don't know what fixes this.

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

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

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

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

And THAT is the problem.

Let the Constitution do what? Mind explaining further?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My two cents, anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems to be working well.

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

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

And it is working.

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

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

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

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

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

Health care for all is slavery? I disagree.

what else do you call forced labor???

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

moderate

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

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

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

be more small business friendly

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

Laws based on logic, reason and necessity?

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

those are leftwing policies,,

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

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

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

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

 

[anynameyouwish]

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

moderate is supporting the constitution as written,,,

What you really mean is to interpret the Constitution as believed by conservatives. Doesn't sound moderate to me.

Only insofar as what conservatives believe is what's actually written. And how can you say it "doesn't sound moderate to you", when you just got done telling us you have no idea what moderate means? Do you even listen to yourself?

I get it, conservatives think they are moderate. Enjoy your day.

and they believe anyone who isnt lock step loons like them must be leftwing marxists.

Pretty much. By the way, this could have been a good conversation about moderation, extremism and compromise but well, look what they did to your thread.

You can't say "wouldn't it be nice if everyone got along" without conservatives pissing all over it.

they don't want to get along

they want to WIN

 

[progressive hunter]

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

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

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

I don't know what fixes this.

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

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

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

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

And THAT is the problem.

Let the Constitution do what? Mind explaining further?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My two cents, anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems to be working well.

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

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

And it is working.

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

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

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

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

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

Health care for all is slavery? I disagree.

what else do you call forced labor???

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

moderate

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

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

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

be more small business friendly

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

Laws based on logic, reason and necessity?

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

those are leftwing policies,,

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

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

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

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

I'm willing to discuss anything as long as it abides by the constitution,, anything else will be called out for what it is,, "AUTHORITARIAN"

 

[Mac1958]

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

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

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

I don't know what fixes this.

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

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

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

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

And THAT is the problem.

Let the Constitution do what? Mind explaining further?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My two cents, anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems to be working well.

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

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

And it is working.

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

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

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

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

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

Health care for all is slavery? I disagree.

what else do you call forced labor???

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

moderate

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

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

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

be more small business friendly

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

Laws based on logic, reason and necessity?

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

those are leftwing policies,,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MaryAnne11]

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

moderate is supporting the constitution as written,,,

What you really mean is to interpret the Constitution as believed by conservatives. Doesn't sound moderate to me.

Only insofar as what conservatives believe is what's actually written. And how can you say it "doesn't sound moderate to you", when you just got done telling us you have no idea what moderate means? Do you even listen to yourself?

I get it, conservatives think they are moderate. Enjoy your day.

and they believe anyone who isnt lock step loons like them must be leftwing marxists.

Pretty much. By the way, this could have been a good conversation about moderation, extremism and compromise but well, look what they did to your thread.

It's hilarious that you see yourself as moderate

It's hilarious that you think that's what I said.

It's hilarious that you see yourself as moderate

I don't, I'm not sure what your problem is but maybe go back and read my post.

Happy Joy, I am still here willing to discuss.

I went off about Kasich, I know but Mac was nice enough to understand.

I am high on public education, think we owe that to the younger generation.