Let's do away with the misleading term "moderate"

[MarkDuffy]

So the OP considers Reagan a moderate because he sided with the Democrats in 1983 to save Social Security?

Not exactly, worse. In today's republicanworld, Reagan is RINO who needs to be primaried.

 

[NYcarbineer]

One day the RWnuts claim that liberals are exclusionary of those who don't agree with them,

the next day the same RWnuts want to literally crucify the Republicans who don't toe the conservative line.

 

[SavannahMann]

The political term "moderate" is an invention of the Left to describe RINOs who vote with Democrats. In this context, it does not mean a reasonable alternative between two extremes. At best, it can be equated to a driver who, criticizing the advice of others as to which lane to drive in, choose to straddle both lanes. A more appropriate term would be "middle-of-the-road," a recipe for disaster.

The reason the Democrats extol the virtues of these "moderates" is that they prevent the implementation of conservative policies, which than shine a bad light on liberal policies such as Obamacare.

So let's stop giving these mealy-mouths the benefit of the doubt and start calling them out: Either get with the program or switch party affiliation and let us vote you out.

Oh good. Another purity purge. This time from the right. I am one of those Moderates you detest. I voted Trump in 2016, and Obama before that. But perhaps you can decide for me who I should vote for in the future.

I am pro Second Amendment, and don't believe we need new laws to "control" guns.

I am in favor of a Woman having the right to an Abortion.

I don't think that Abortion should be paid for by the Taxpayers.

I am in favor of a strong military. I think we are losing, actually, that we have already lost the war in Afghanistan.

I support the other amendments outlining our rights with the same dedication as the Second. This means I am opposed to roadside searches by the Police after a dog scratches himself.

I am opposed to Civil Forfeiture.

I am not in favor of trade deals with anyone other than essentially equal economies. NAFTA with Canada would be fine by me, with Mexico not so much, because as we have seen all that happens is offshoring of jobs.

I believe that the Unions can and do provide a needed voice for the workers, and I believe that the same Unions are perpetually in danger of ignoring the workers in favor of power in political arenas.

I believe in States Rights, including the right of the State to decide to refuse voluntary cooperation with Immigration Agents.

I believe the Federal Government can cut off Grants, Grants being gifts, and no gift is ever guaranteed.

I am opposed to the militarization of the Police, and disagree with the policy of giving cops military equipment including fully automatic weapons and armored vehicles.

I am a member of the ACLU and the NRA. I agree with the NRA on the Second Amendment and agree with the ACLU generally speaking on the rest of the Amendments.

By Georgia standards, where I live, I'm pretty liberal. By the standards of San Francisco, I'm a right wing lunatic.

But thanks to your asinine post, I realize that I'm not allowed to believe in all of that. I'm not allowed to think that the Fifth Amendment should prohibit Civil Forfeitures. If I believe we are losing or have essentially lost already in Afghanistan I'm a defeatist.

Here's the secret. The secret that the purity purge folks on the left and yourself don't get. You need us. When we shift left, the Democrats win. When we shift right the Republicans win. Now, you are just as arrogantly wrong as the idiots on the left who scream that we are voting against our interests. Nonsense. We are voting the way we believe our interests line up.

If you are willing to represent those interests, we're willing to vote for you. But make no mistake. You are not doing us a favor by running for office. We're hiring you to do a job, and that job is to represent our interests in Congress, or as President. If you don't do it, we'll find someone who will. We aren't lucky you are willing to take the job, you're lucky if we decide you can be entrusted with it.

The job is Representative. The Politicians who represent their constituents are the ones who get re-elected. The rest of the Republican Party may not feel as adamantly about the issues as you do, but you need them too. Because that "moderate" Republican you denounce is giving you the majority in Congress. Now, if you chase away all the Moderates, you end up back in the Minority, where you can stomp your foot and scream unfair as the Democrats do what the Republicans are doing now.

A Liberal from San Francisco can't get elected in Georgia. But even a moderate Republican, or Democrat from Georgia is too conservative for San Francisco. Different regions have different values, and interests.

We aren't traitors refusing to march in lock step with you. You're probably the one who is out of the mainstream.

So get over yourself, and get off the soapbox and figure out that we have to learn to talk to each other. Find issues that you agree with the majority on, and make some progress there. Don't just pout and stomp your foot like a petulant child and scream that everyone is wrong because they don't think like you do.

Oh, one last thing. Everybody doesn't think like you do. A majority don't even think like you do. That's why Purity Purges are so destructive. You weed out all those who aren't pure enough, and you're left with a handful who do meet the requirements, and then you scream it's not fair that you can't get anything done with ten people in Congress.

Thanks for the primal scream manifesto. Your understanding of the issues you so fervently addressed is a mile wide and an inch deep. For example:

1. You believe in a right to abortion, but don't believe taxpayers should pay for this medical procedure. Why not?

Well, first off the taxpayer does not normally fund other voluntary procedures. Why should abortion be different than any other procedure?

2. You are in favor of a strong military, but don't address how to pay for it.

Currently, 54% of the budget is spent on the Military. That is nearly $600 billion. Are you telling me that we can't have a good, well trained, and strong military for $600 Billion? You do realize that we have about half a million people in the Active Duty Army. The total of the active duty military is 1.2 million. https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/rest/download?fileName=rg1706.pdf&groupName=milRankGrade

Now, are you telling me we can't have a strong military while spending that much money on those few people? Here's the first idea, stop spending a ten million dollars to fire Tomahawk missiles to make a point.

3. You are opposed to drug searches, but don't address whether drugs should be legal.

Oh FFS. What has the war on drugs bought us? Seriously. We've been fighting these various wars on whatever since I was a boy when Ronald Reagan was President. War on Drugs, War on Crime, We've been fighting the War on Poverty my entire life. We just keep pouring money into it, and gain nothing. Want to make a real dent? Legalize Marijuana. Oh, and before you do the usual you just want to smoke it nonsense, I'm allergic, so I don't smoke pot. But I think it is stupid to lock someone up for years because of it.

As for the Harder stuff? We can debate that. I don't know that it should be legal, but keeping it illegal has not done much to stop it yet. We moved Sudafed behind the counter and restricted access. Now, instead of a few pound being made in a month in some kitchen, thousands of pounds are made in factories. The war on Crystal Meth has had a remarkable result. Availability of the drug is up about a thousand percent.

Information Bulletin: Crystal Methamphetamine

Why is it that the right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure is somehow problematic. Why must we abolish all the other rights that have existed just as long as the Second Amendment, to placate your insane purity purge ideals?

4. You are a member of the ACLU, but don't address of violent protests.

Oh good Lord, you really are scraping at the scabs trying to find something here. Nonsense. The First Amendment grants people the right to peaceably assemble, not the right to riot. Idiot. Supporting the right to free speech does not mean I want riots. Oh, and before you ask, that includes the right of the White whatever's to stand around and shout their nonsense. Freedom of speech is all speech, not just that which you approve of.

No where in the First Amendment does it give you the right to riot. Idiot.

It seems to me that your "moderation" is a substitute for taking responsibility for the consequences of your beliefs.

Oh bullshit again. That's like claiming that supporting the 2nd Amendment means you are in favor of people killing each other in the cities and towns around the nation. Nonsense. I like cars, but that doesn't mean I cheer when an accident happens. Moron.

The Constitution is not a smorgasbord. You don't get to walk down the line and pick the favorites and ignore the rest. It all ties together, it's all one thing. You can't claim to be a supporter of the constitution while advocating the destruction of parts of it.

We've done that, and we thought we had good reasons. We abolished parts of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments because of the war on terror. In time, we came to our senses, well I can see most of us have.

I would object just as loudly to you having your rights abridged as anyone else. Ok, probably object as loudly, since you are an ignorant ass who doesn't comprehend anything but lockstep obedience to your own asinine vision.

 

[Chuz Life]

Do you think a child's rights should begin when their life does?

Yes or no.

If this is what you call "child", then CLEARLY the answer is no - DUH?

So, the moderate position is that a child is not a child until it lives too long and looks too much lime a child to be denied anymore.

Got it.

So, moderates place the onus / burden on the child to reach an arbitrarily decided point before they are entitled to their own Constitutional rights and protections?

Do you know what the definition of fascism is?

What is your malfunction? Why do you keep making straw-men of my position?

I explained to you that I consider person-hood to begin with a minimal higher brain activity, though I believe that Constitution (among other laws we have) never guranteed rights to unborn (which could be generously interpreted as not-viable).

That is not arbitrary at all.

This is why I'm a moderate and you are far-righty, you don't listen and you don't understand opposing position.

A couple of things in my defense that might help explain.

1. I have very poor vision. Among other problems, I am borderline for glaucoma and macular degeneration. Where I used to be able to read and see entire sentences clearly at once, now I can only see a few letters or at most one word at a time as I read.

2. So, I misread some of your early posts which I quoted in bold text. I actually did read it as though you claimed that you supported later abortions and even criminal abortions. . . Because the child aborted has no brain capacity.

3. I have the world's crappiest phone for texting (in my opinion) along with almost useless Wi-Fi, autocorrect from hello and I have to rush everything because of limited time during breaks.

Oh wow, talk about hardships. Sorry for the rough words.

Thanks but I don't mind the rough words at all. I'm not looking for pity. Just needed to explain why and how I misread your post. We still disagree hugely on a lot of things.

I will try to address those areas as I get the chance. I do appreciate your understanding of my situation though.

 

[Rustic]

The political term "moderate" is an invention of the Left to describe RINOs who vote with Democrats.

What ass did you pull that from?

I consider moderate anyone willing to hear and seriously consider the other side's argument and be willing to settle for compromise.

In other words… you want everyone to think the same in a collective

Uh no. That's your team. Obey the central hive or else.

And they wonder why we call them dumb

Progressives love the collective, They have never been able to think for themselves.

 

[jwoodie]

Isn't this precious!

Democrats invented the word moderate? LOL

Ever notice you don't see the word DINO. RINO is all over the place and guess who uses it?

How about COMPROMISE? It has become a republican dirty word.

1. Ho hum, another failed attempt at sarcasm.

2. Get new reading glasses. I don't know who invented the word "moderate," but the Dems sure love them (except when they don't need their votes).

3. The equivalent term is Blue Dog Democrat. But they have all been driven out of The Party.

4. When TSA legislation was introduced after 9/11, the Dems wouldn't vote for it until it specified that all personnel would be unionized federal employees. In politics, compromise and extortion are two sides of the same coin..

 

[jwoodie]

The political term "moderate" is an invention of the Left to describe RINOs who vote with Democrats. In this context, it does not mean a reasonable alternative between two extremes. At best, it can be equated to a driver who, criticizing the advice of others as to which lane to drive in, choose to straddle both lanes. A more appropriate term would be "middle-of-the-road," a recipe for disaster.

The reason the Democrats extol the virtues of these "moderates" is that they prevent the implementation of conservative policies, which than shine a bad light on liberal policies such as Obamacare.

So let's stop giving these mealy-mouths the benefit of the doubt and start calling them out: Either get with the program or switch party affiliation and let us vote you out.

Oh good. Another purity purge. This time from the right. I am one of those Moderates you detest. I voted Trump in 2016, and Obama before that. But perhaps you can decide for me who I should vote for in the future.

I am pro Second Amendment, and don't believe we need new laws to "control" guns.

I am in favor of a Woman having the right to an Abortion.

I don't think that Abortion should be paid for by the Taxpayers.

I am in favor of a strong military. I think we are losing, actually, that we have already lost the war in Afghanistan.

I support the other amendments outlining our rights with the same dedication as the Second. This means I am opposed to roadside searches by the Police after a dog scratches himself.

I am opposed to Civil Forfeiture.

I am not in favor of trade deals with anyone other than essentially equal economies. NAFTA with Canada would be fine by me, with Mexico not so much, because as we have seen all that happens is offshoring of jobs.

I believe that the Unions can and do provide a needed voice for the workers, and I believe that the same Unions are perpetually in danger of ignoring the workers in favor of power in political arenas.

I believe in States Rights, including the right of the State to decide to refuse voluntary cooperation with Immigration Agents.

I believe the Federal Government can cut off Grants, Grants being gifts, and no gift is ever guaranteed.

I am opposed to the militarization of the Police, and disagree with the policy of giving cops military equipment including fully automatic weapons and armored vehicles.

I am a member of the ACLU and the NRA. I agree with the NRA on the Second Amendment and agree with the ACLU generally speaking on the rest of the Amendments.

By Georgia standards, where I live, I'm pretty liberal. By the standards of San Francisco, I'm a right wing lunatic.

But thanks to your asinine post, I realize that I'm not allowed to believe in all of that. I'm not allowed to think that the Fifth Amendment should prohibit Civil Forfeitures. If I believe we are losing or have essentially lost already in Afghanistan I'm a defeatist.

Here's the secret. The secret that the purity purge folks on the left and yourself don't get. You need us. When we shift left, the Democrats win. When we shift right the Republicans win. Now, you are just as arrogantly wrong as the idiots on the left who scream that we are voting against our interests. Nonsense. We are voting the way we believe our interests line up.

If you are willing to represent those interests, we're willing to vote for you. But make no mistake. You are not doing us a favor by running for office. We're hiring you to do a job, and that job is to represent our interests in Congress, or as President. If you don't do it, we'll find someone who will. We aren't lucky you are willing to take the job, you're lucky if we decide you can be entrusted with it.

The job is Representative. The Politicians who represent their constituents are the ones who get re-elected. The rest of the Republican Party may not feel as adamantly about the issues as you do, but you need them too. Because that "moderate" Republican you denounce is giving you the majority in Congress. Now, if you chase away all the Moderates, you end up back in the Minority, where you can stomp your foot and scream unfair as the Democrats do what the Republicans are doing now.

A Liberal from San Francisco can't get elected in Georgia. But even a moderate Republican, or Democrat from Georgia is too conservative for San Francisco. Different regions have different values, and interests.

We aren't traitors refusing to march in lock step with you. You're probably the one who is out of the mainstream.

So get over yourself, and get off the soapbox and figure out that we have to learn to talk to each other. Find issues that you agree with the majority on, and make some progress there. Don't just pout and stomp your foot like a petulant child and scream that everyone is wrong because they don't think like you do.

Oh, one last thing. Everybody doesn't think like you do. A majority don't even think like you do. That's why Purity Purges are so destructive. You weed out all those who aren't pure enough, and you're left with a handful who do meet the requirements, and then you scream it's not fair that you can't get anything done with ten people in Congress.

Thanks for the primal scream manifesto. Your understanding of the issues you so fervently addressed is a mile wide and an inch deep. For example:

1. You believe in a right to abortion, but don't believe taxpayers should pay for this medical procedure. Why not?

Well, first off the taxpayer does not normally fund other voluntary procedures. Why should abortion be different than any other procedure?

2. You are in favor of a strong military, but don't address how to pay for it.

Currently, 54% of the budget is spent on the Military. That is nearly $600 billion. Are you telling me that we can't have a good, well trained, and strong military for $600 Billion? You do realize that we have about half a million people in the Active Duty Army. The total of the active duty military is 1.2 million. https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/rest/download?fileName=rg1706.pdf&groupName=milRankGrade

Now, are you telling me we can't have a strong military while spending that much money on those few people? Here's the first idea, stop spending a ten million dollars to fire Tomahawk missiles to make a point.

3. You are opposed to drug searches, but don't address whether drugs should be legal.

Oh FFS. What has the war on drugs bought us? Seriously. We've been fighting these various wars on whatever since I was a boy when Ronald Reagan was President. War on Drugs, War on Crime, We've been fighting the War on Poverty my entire life. We just keep pouring money into it, and gain nothing. Want to make a real dent? Legalize Marijuana. Oh, and before you do the usual you just want to smoke it nonsense, I'm allergic, so I don't smoke pot. But I think it is stupid to lock someone up for years because of it.

As for the Harder stuff? We can debate that. I don't know that it should be legal, but keeping it illegal has not done much to stop it yet. We moved Sudafed behind the counter and restricted access. Now, instead of a few pound being made in a month in some kitchen, thousands of pounds are made in factories. The war on Crystal Meth has had a remarkable result. Availability of the drug is up about a thousand percent.

Information Bulletin: Crystal Methamphetamine

Why is it that the right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure is somehow problematic. Why must we abolish all the other rights that have existed just as long as the Second Amendment, to placate your insane purity purge ideals?

4. You are a member of the ACLU, but don't address of violent protests.

Oh good Lord, you really are scraping at the scabs trying to find something here. Nonsense. The First Amendment grants people the right to peaceably assemble, not the right to riot. Idiot. Supporting the right to free speech does not mean I want riots. Oh, and before you ask, that includes the right of the White whatever's to stand around and shout their nonsense. Freedom of speech is all speech, not just that which you approve of.

No where in the First Amendment does it give you the right to riot. Idiot.

It seems to me that your "moderation" is a substitute for taking responsibility for the consequences of your beliefs.

Oh bullshit again. That's like claiming that supporting the 2nd Amendment means you are in favor of people killing each other in the cities and towns around the nation. Nonsense. I like cars, but that doesn't mean I cheer when an accident happens. Moron.

The Constitution is not a smorgasbord. You don't get to walk down the line and pick the favorites and ignore the rest. It all ties together, it's all one thing. You can't claim to be a supporter of the constitution while advocating the destruction of parts of it.

We've done that, and we thought we had good reasons. We abolished parts of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments because of the war on terror. In time, we came to our senses, well I can see most of us have.

I would object just as loudly to you having your rights abridged as anyone else. Ok, probably object as loudly, since you are an ignorant ass who doesn't comprehend anything but lockstep obedience to your own asinine vision.

To summarize:

1. You are opposed to taxpayer funded elective medical procedures of any kind, not just abortion?

2. You want a "strong" military, but don't want to spend any more money for it?

3.. You want to legalize marijuana because it will decrease poverty?

4. You are opposed to violent protests but support the ACLU's Grassroots Volunteer Resistance Movement (and its opposition to enforcement of federal immigration laws)?

How very "moderate" of you.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Great.

What is the moderate position on a child's Constiutional rights beginning when their life does?

Constitutional rights do not apply to not-born, those that wrote it are pretty clear on that.

I'm a moderate because while I'm pro-choice I have no problem with late term restrictions, even criminal ones. This stems from my belief that person-hood is a function of minimal higher brain activity.

So, according to that theory, most liberals would not qualify for person-hood because they have little to no brain activity?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

C'mon...."moderates" and "independents" are words from yesteryear. Borders have been drawn and there's nobody left sitting on the fence...they've all been dragged to one side or the other by now.

Sitting on a fence is uncomfortable because the pickets stick you in the crack of your ass.

 

[HenryBHough]

Not for nothing are:
RINO
and
WIMP
4-letter words.

 

[initforme]

Dumbest thread of the day award......low IQ thread. Well done. Hilarious. Everyone has to have a label in low IQ country.

 

[sakinago]

I'd like to ask to OP and anyone commenting here against so called moderates...who do you consider moderates? Just so we're on the same page.

Just saying Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are the night kings of the moderates, IMO, almost everyone they touch, their eyes turn blue...

 

[hazlnut]

The political term "moderate" is an invention of the Left to describe RINOs who vote with Democrats. In this context, it does not mean a reasonable alternative between two extremes. At best, it can be equated to a driver who, criticizing the advice of others as to which lane to drive in, choose to straddle both lanes. A more appropriate term would be "middle-of-the-road," a recipe for disaster.

The reason the Democrats extol the virtues of these "moderates" is that they prevent the implementation of conservative policies, which than shine a bad light on liberal policies such as Obamacare.

So let's stop giving these mealy-mouths the benefit of the doubt and start calling them out: Either get with the program or switch party affiliation and let us vote you out.

Takes the alt-right and put them on an island with unlimited supply of k-y.

up your dumb ass

 

[jwoodie]

So the OP considers Reagan a moderate because he sided with the Democrats in 1983 to save Social Security?

Not exactly, worse. In today's republicanworld, Reagan is RINO who needs to be primaried.

When Reagan was President, the House was controlled by Democrats who refused to increase defense spending without an increase in social welfare programs. The former contributed to the downfall of the Soviet Union, but the latter merely accelerated our fiscal problems. If you want to describe making a deal with the Devil as being "moderate," go ahead. But at least own up to it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The political term "moderate" is an invention of the Left to describe RINOs who vote with Democrats.

What ass did you pull that from?

I consider moderate anyone willing to hear and seriously consider the other side's argument and be willing to settle for compromise.

In other words… you want everyone to think the same in a collective

Uh no. That's your team. Obey the central hive or else.

And they wonder why we call them dumb

Progressives love the collective, They have never been able to think for themselves.

lol, the military is the most collective institution in America. Why do you hate the military?

 

[Rustic]

The political term "moderate" is an invention of the Left to describe RINOs who vote with Democrats.

What ass did you pull that from?

I consider moderate anyone willing to hear and seriously consider the other side's argument and be willing to settle for compromise.

In other words… you want everyone to think the same in a collective

Uh no. That's your team. Obey the central hive or else.

And they wonder why we call them dumb

Progressives love the collective, They have never been able to think for themselves.

lol, the military is the most collective institution in America. Why do you hate the military?

I love the military, I was in the National Guard for 8 years. The military is voluntary that's what makes it great… LOL

 

[my2¢]

There are still a vast number of us who aren't guided by either party nor left/right ideology but rather decide things issue-by-issue for ourselves. We're likely responsible for your moderates. That's life in the big city.

 

[jwoodie]

I'd like to ask to OP and anyone commenting here against so called moderates...who do you consider moderates? Just so we're on the same page.

Just saying Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are the night kings of the moderates, IMO, almost everyone they touch, their eyes turn blue...

The three GOP Senators who voted against in the most recent Obamacare vote are described as "moderates" by Democrats and RINOs by most Republicans. I think they are playing on both sides of the fence in order to deceive their constituents and curry favor with the liberal press. Despite their previous affirmations to repeal Obamacare, they would rather sit on the sidelines and see how the wind blows before staking out a position.

Paul Ryan is a fiscal conservative who was a compromise candidate for Speaker. As such, he has to mollify "moderate" GOP House Members who represent majority Democratic districts. Mitch McConnell seems to have risen from the ranks of mediocrity by not being offensive or confrontational. The 2018 elections may be as pivotal as the 2016 elections. Voters will have a choice between pursuing a conservative agenda or surrendering to the Antifa mobs. Current polling does not represent what people will do when they are actually casting their ballots, but we will see.

 

[Borillar]

Care to cite any examples?

Sure, I'm a MODERATE on minimum wage.

I am pro-minimum wage but consider $15 minimum wage excessive.

Would you compromise at $14.95?

 

[AntonToo]

Care to cite any examples?

Sure, I'm a MODERATE on minimum wage.

I am pro-minimum wage but consider $15 minimum wage excessive.

Would you compromise at $14.95?

NO, $10 is a good point for national mw. It's time tested (it was $10 in real terms in the 60s) and not an over reach.