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

[Harry Dresden]

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

==========================

likewise for the leftwing scumbags of the demoncRAT party, "nutty"
does not fully describe those assholes..., traitorous commies comes close.

can anyone tell me when Harry "Whorehouse" Reid and his illegal alien mulatto buddy ever tried compromising with the right side of any fucking thing ?

Obama reportedly plotting end-run around Congress on global climate change deal

The New York Times reported that the agreement is slated to be signed at a United Nations meeting next year in Paris. However, because the U.S. Senate is unlikely to ratify any international climate treaty, Obama’s negotiators reportedly are working toward an alternative agreement – a “politically binding” deal that would serve in lieu of a bona-fide treaty.

who is his "Mulatto" buddy?....and why is his racial makeup important?...

 

[Harry Dresden]

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

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

some people just cant understand how someone can actually not vote for a party person....

 

[Erand7899]

Lone Laughter wrote:

If you insist that President Obama was issuing an insult to business owners and entrepreneurs when he uttered the words ".....you didn't build that....", you are not a centrist. You are too stupid to be called a centrist.
What you might be is a whiner and a malcontent
______________________________________________________

The simple fact that you do not understand the insult, pretty much identifies yourself. Stupid is as stupid does.

Infrastructure is not some grand gift from any government, local, state or federal. It is bought and paid for by the American taxpayer. The government is only the agent between the contractors and the taxpayers. So yes, we did build that, and we expect to use it.

 

[g5000]

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

==========================

likewise for the leftwing scumbags of the demoncRAT party, "nutty"
does not fully describe those assholes..., traitorous commies comes close.

can anyone tell me when Harry "Whorehouse" Reid and his illegal alien mulatto buddy ever tried compromising with the right side of any fucking thing ?

This is just my opinion, but I'm preeeeetty sure any centrist party would not welcome people who say things like "Harry 'Whorehouse' Reid and his illegal alien mulatto buddy".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Just curious.

This could be an interesting discussion.

People would probably be interested in defining "Centrist".

Also, you might want to count in the personality factor. Were a really well known American to decide to take an independent run for the White House, would you support that person?

A centrist is a person who lacks conviction, knowledge or a moral compass.....a fence-sitter. So, no, I would not vote for anyone who does not understand political philosophy.

Why do you think this? Do you think that only the extremes have something to contribute to the forward movement of US-American society?

I disagree with the context of the question. Conservatism isn't extreme, it is natural, as it allows people to pursue their own life, and does not grow a centralized government to lord over us, paid for by confiscatory policies. Modern liberalism (not classical liberalism) is a vehicle to expand government, in a sense, a self-serving governmental construct that creates the much-needed dependents to feed and support it.

But don't take my word for it (few do). Just draw from the vast wealth of knowledge that history gives us. Liberalism ALWAYS leads to tyranny, everywhere and every time it has been tired. Conservatism is the attempt at an antidote, and most eloquently inculcated in our Constitution.

I love this topic. Anyone who wants to discuss in detail, turn me on....

Disagree with the bolded.


That's not true with regard to conservatism as it has been practiced for more than the last 40 years.


Conservatism doesn't allow people to pursue their own life, as those on the right seek to deny gay Americans their equal protection rights, women their privacy rights, and transgender persons their right to individual liberty. We see conservatives hostile to religious liberty, hostile to Islam, hostile to those free from faith, and advocating that religious dogma be codified into secular law with 'defense of marriage' acts and 'personhood' legislation.


For example, we have posts in threads on this very forum by conservatives advocating that gay Americans be denied access to public accommodations and denied access to marriage contract law they're eligible to participate in, for no other reason than who they are: persons seeking to pursue their own life.


Your perception of conservatism may have been true during the 50s and 60s, but it's clearly not true today, where the agenda pursued by the political right is clearly in conflict with the fundamental principles of individual liberty.

 

[Youch]

Just curious.

This could be an interesting discussion.

People would probably be interested in defining "Centrist".

Also, you might want to count in the personality factor. Were a really well known American to decide to take an independent run for the White House, would you support that person?

A centrist is a person who lacks conviction, knowledge or a moral compass.....a fence-sitter. So, no, I would not vote for anyone who does not understand political philosophy.

Why do you think this? Do you think that only the extremes have something to contribute to the forward movement of US-American society?

I disagree with the context of the question. Conservatism isn't extreme, it is natural, as it allows people to pursue their own life, and does not grow a centralized government to lord over us, paid for by confiscatory policies. Modern liberalism (not classical liberalism) is a vehicle to expand government, in a sense, a self-serving governmental construct that creates the much-needed dependents to feed and support it.

But don't take my word for it (few do). Just draw from the vast wealth of knowledge that history gives us. Liberalism ALWAYS leads to tyranny, everywhere and every time it has been tired. Conservatism is the attempt at an antidote, and most eloquently inculcated in our Constitution.

I love this topic. Anyone who wants to discuss in detail, turn me on....

Disagree with the bolded.


That's not true with regard to conservatism as it has been practiced for more than the last 40 years.


Conservatism doesn't allow people to pursue their own life, as those on the right seek to deny gay Americans their equal protection rights, women their privacy rights, and transgender persons their right to individual liberty. We see conservatives hostile to religious liberty, hostile to Islam, hostile to those free from faith, and advocating that religious dogma be codified into secular law with 'defense of marriage' acts and 'personhood' legislation.


For example, we have posts in threads on this very forum by conservatives advocating that gay Americans be denied access to public accommodations and denied access to marriage contract law they're eligible to participate in, for no other reason than who they are: persons seeking to pursue their own life.


Your perception of conservatism may have been true during the 50s and 60s, but it's clearly not true today, where the agenda pursued by the political right is clearly in conflict with the fundamental principles of individual liberty.

So you disagree with me, or the conservative platform, because gay activists push an agenda to change the definition of a word? Well, okay, but I think that is too narrow of a view of the political philosophy of which I was speaking.

You'll need to be a lot more specific when you accuse conservatives of not protecting women's rights. Sounds like propaganda, to me. Are you speaking of the rights of unborn humans?

One of the things that confuses many liberals, and/or the uninitiated, is layering religious values over political conservative principles. The two do overlap, but they are different issues, different arguments. But you seem even more confused than most when you submit that conservatives are hostile to religious liberty.....this makes me think you get your news from a comedy station or from People Magazine or some such.

And "hostile to Islam??" Are you kidding me? Logic tells me you must therefor also think Israel is wrong to defend itself and is being hostile to Islam in the process. Bizarre, backwards and dangerous thinking, that. You think Islam supports gay rights, women's rights, and the all important transvestites? You lament the conservative platform, yet infer Islam is a better culture for human rights? Get your head on straight, man....

 

[Youch]

In talking about a third party, seizing the center is the only way to succeed. Far right or far left will only ensure victory to the opposite side

By getting just 10% of the vote, a central party could decide all major issues as each side would have to cater to the center to get legislation passed

Decide major issues based upon what compass? Based on what conviction? On what philosophy?

And this assertion that to be left or right is to be "far" or "extreme" misses the whole point and just feeds divisiveness...heck, it lacks imagination, at the very least.

 

[Youch]

Just curious.

This could be an interesting discussion.

People would probably be interested in defining "Centrist".

Also, you might want to count in the personality factor. Were a really well known American to decide to take an independent run for the White House, would you support that person?

A centrist is a person who lacks conviction, knowledge or a moral compass.....a fence-sitter. So, no, I would not vote for anyone who does not understand political philosophy.

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

Okay smart guy, on what set of principles does a centrist rely upon? What set of convictions, philosophy? Capitulation? Finger to the wind? Mob rules?

You'll have to do better than "bullshit" to advance this discussion.

 

[Youch]

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

No, the person your responded to listed a few positions, and you basically called them nutty, which is superficial. Explain. Heck, just start with one and lets go from there....

You might also add to your credibility by admitting that "far left, uncompromising democrat is a nutty" is equally true. See, this is why I avoid discussing political parties... too much "partisanship" and spin and confusion, purposeful and otherwise.

Lol the entire point I was making is that those were far right republican issues that were not at all centrist. The validity of them is a separate issue. What debate shall we have of them?

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


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

Bring it....

Easy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shall I go on?

SO we agree extremists are nutty. That wasn't the conversation I was having. Most libs I've read on this forum lump all or most republicans into the "extremist" category, while at the same time pretending that to have no conviction or principle (i.e., the wet-fingered centrist) is a viable platform.

 

[Youch]

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

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

No,

 

[Youch]

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

Ralph Nader didn't.

Thought for certain I mentioned that exception.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Just curious.

This could be an interesting discussion.

People would probably be interested in defining "Centrist".

Also, you might want to count in the personality factor. Were a really well known American to decide to take an independent run for the White House, would you support that person?

A centrist is a person who lacks conviction, knowledge or a moral compass.....a fence-sitter. So, no, I would not vote for anyone who does not understand political philosophy.

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

Okay smart guy, on what set of principles does a centrist rely upon? What set of convictions, philosophy? Capitulation? Finger to the wind? Mob rules?

You'll have to do better than "bullshit" to advance this discussion.

speaking for me.....it depends on what issue you are talking about.....i can be pretty conservative on some things and pretty liberal on others.....i dont care for either party but that doesnt mean i would not agree with one of them on something.....mostly i cant stand the far right and left.....i dont admire people who follow their little parties no matter what....even if they dont agree with them....if you want me to say more you will have to wait until i get back....the wife is letting me know its time to go....

 

[Pogo]

I'm with Harry ^^.

I'll disagree with this:

A centrist is a person who lacks conviction, knowledge or a moral compass.....a fence-sitter.

Nah, don't think so. A centrist at least should be one who understands the worthy points of this side and that side and can synthesize the best of both without getting hung up on ideological stumbling blocks.

So, no, I would not vote for anyone who does not understand political philosophy

Debatable, but that's got nothing to do with centrists; you can't very well end up in the center without studying both "sides" first.

 

[Youch]

Just curious.

This could be an interesting discussion.

People would probably be interested in defining "Centrist".

Also, you might want to count in the personality factor. Were a really well known American to decide to take an independent run for the White House, would you support that person?

A centrist is a person who lacks conviction, knowledge or a moral compass.....a fence-sitter. So, no, I would not vote for anyone who does not understand political philosophy.

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

Okay smart guy, on what set of principles does a centrist rely upon? What set of convictions, philosophy? Capitulation? Finger to the wind? Mob rules?

You'll have to do better than "bullshit" to advance this discussion.

speaking for me.....it depends on what issue you are talking about.....i can be pretty conservative on some things and pretty liberal on others.....i dont care for either party but that doesnt mean i would not agree with one of them on something.....mostly i cant stand the far right and left.....i dont admire people who follow their little parties no matter what....even if they dont agree with them....if you want me to say more you will have to wait until i get back....the wife is letting me know its time to go....

Right. Not sure why the far left and far right keeping getting introduced into this and other discussions.

Right, we agree that partisan politics has nothing to do with what is right and wrong.

That is what I've been saying.

Now back to the topic..... on what set of convictions, morals, principles or philosophies does the "centrist" rely? I can reiterate my point of view, but I'm waiting for someone else to answer that question? I find a centrist to be one of the following: ignorant, maleducated, morally weak, wimpy, of apathetical. What else could it be? Capitulation? Mob rules? I find people who lack a basic set of principles to be....naw, I will refrain.

 

[Youch]

I'm with Harry ^^.

I'll disagree with this:

A centrist is a person who lacks conviction, knowledge or a moral compass.....a fence-sitter.

Nah, don't think so. A centrist at least should be one who understands the worthy points of this side and that side and can synthesize the best of both without getting hung up on ideological stumbling blocks.

So, no, I would not vote for anyone who does not understand political philosophy

Debatable, but that's got nothing to do with centrists; you can't very well end up in the center without studying both "sides" first.

I owe you an apology.....someone called you a liar (somewhere around here) and I was unaware of the fact, and made the gross and horrible violation of stating otherwise. Shame on me for such a violation. How you handled that situation, however, reminded me that I often am debating jerks.

Many people assume and consider themselves "centrists" without knowing either political philosophy, mostly out of a weak moral conviction or a desire to be accepted by the majority. I find it weak, in either case. Let me amend that....not many, most. When informed and educated, humans are able to discern between the two. Normally. It is nonsense to think that "centrists" have studies anything. Like I said in my original post, to be a centrist is to be a fence-sitter. And I would not vote for such an uneducated person.

 

[Youch]

Just curious.

This could be an interesting discussion.

People would probably be interested in defining "Centrist".

Also, you might want to count in the personality factor. Were a really well known American to decide to take an independent run for the White House, would you support that person?

A centrist is a person who lacks conviction, knowledge or a moral compass.....a fence-sitter. So, no, I would not vote for anyone who does not understand political philosophy.

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

Okay smart guy, on what set of principles does a centrist rely upon? What set of convictions, philosophy? Capitulation? Finger to the wind? Mob rules?

You'll have to do better than "bullshit" to advance this discussion.

speaking for me.....it depends on what issue you are talking about.....i can be pretty conservative on some things and pretty liberal on others.....i dont care for either party but that doesnt mean i would not agree with one of them on something.....mostly i cant stand the far right and left.....i dont admire people who follow their little parties no matter what....even if they dont agree with them....if you want me to say more you will have to wait until i get back....the wife is letting me know its time to go....

With all due respect, you did not answer my question. On WHAT does the "centrist" base their position??

 

[Pogo]

I'm with Harry ^^.

I'll disagree with this:

A centrist is a person who lacks conviction, knowledge or a moral compass.....a fence-sitter.

Nah, don't think so. A centrist at least should be one who understands the worthy points of this side and that side and can synthesize the best of both without getting hung up on ideological stumbling blocks.

So, no, I would not vote for anyone who does not understand political philosophy

Debatable, but that's got nothing to do with centrists; you can't very well end up in the center without studying both "sides" first.

I owe you an apology.....someone called you a liar (somewhere around here) and I was unaware of the fact, and made the gross and horrible violation of stating otherwise. Shame on me for such a violation. How you handled that situation, however, reminded me that I often am debating jerks.

Well done sir, graciously accepted.

Many people assume and consider themselves "centrists" without knowing either political philosophy, mostly out of a weak moral conviction or a desire to be accepted by the majority. I find it weak, in either case. Let me amend that....not many, most. When informed and educated, humans are able to discern between the two. Normally. It is nonsense to think that "centrists" have studies anything. Like I said in my original post, to be a centrist is to be a fence-sitter. And I would not vote for such an uneducated person.

Depends on what got them to a point of "centrism" then, doesn't it?
Panderers certainly fall all over the political spectrum. It doesn't seem the center is a home for pandering, since those such a politician would pander to are far-flung all over the map. He ends up trying to please everybody and that, in politics or elsewhere, usually finishes last. That I suspect is what you have in mind here.

What I took the OP's "centrist" to mean (and it's already been noted teh term has to be defined) was a party that balances ideas from both right and left without getting hung up on the extremes of either. If that's even possible, but this is all hypothetical.

I tend not to believe in parties so I'd prefer to look at such things individually. At base, the purpose of a party is to get people into power, not to represent an ideology. So as soon as the latter threatens the former, the quest for power wins out every time and philosophical principles are the first casualty. And that's an empty quest.

 

[percysunshine]

Just curious.

This could be an interesting discussion.

People would probably be interested in defining "Centrist".

Also, you might want to count in the personality factor. Were a really well known American to decide to take an independent run for the White House, would you support that person?

Are you running for President ... again?

.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

If it had a snowball's chance in hell of making a difference in federal legislation, and if it fit into my personal philosophy of what a third voice in federal politics should broadcast, then I'd work my ass off for a third party. Oh wait a minute...I already did that. We were called...we were called...oh yea! We were called the Reform Party. Sorry about that, but you know how ephemeral the memory can be when it comes to third party history in this country.

 

[Pogo]

If it had a snowball's chance in hell of making a difference in federal legislation, and if it fit into my personal philosophy of what a third voice in federal politics should broadcast, then I'd work my ass off for a third party. Oh wait a minute...I already did that. We were called...we were called...oh yea! We were called the Reform Party. Sorry about that, but you know how ephemeral the memory can be when it comes to third party history in this country.

"As for a third party, we tried that, the People's Party. Unfortunately we forgot that in order to have a third party you must first have two other parties" --- Gore Vidal (roughly)