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

[Shanty]

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?

Democrats are already the centrist party.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

So, Pogo, your idea of argumentation is marking the red x, eh? Nice argument. Got gumballs? LOL! I got a box of nails.

Is somebody uncwear on what de widdle word "disagree" means? Pretty basic, Doodles.

Whatever you, barkeep. Got nails?

 

[Kondor3]

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?

Democrats are already the centrist party.

The Democratic Party hasn't manifested a solid and sustained Centrist streak since the 1950s.

 

[Shanty]

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?

Democrats are already the centrist party.

The Democratic Party hasn't manifested a solid and sustained Centrist streak since the 1950s.

The GOP has gone over to the far right. The Democratic Party has been moving to the right for decades now. They may even be somewhat slightly right of center, now.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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?

the majority of the gop is centrist

so clearly no

 

[Two Thumbs]

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?

Democrats are already the centrist party.

The Democratic Party hasn't manifested a solid and sustained Centrist streak since the 1950s.

The GOP has gone over to the far right. The Democratic Party has been moving to the right for decades now. They may even be somewhat slightly right of center, now.

That's the most insane statement I have heard in a very long time and flies in the face of reality.

unless you think centrist want absolute Fed control of everything

 

[Shanty]

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?

Democrats are already the centrist party.

The Democratic Party hasn't manifested a solid and sustained Centrist streak since the 1950s.

The GOP has gone over to the far right. The Democratic Party has been moving to the right for decades now. They may even be somewhat slightly right of center, now.

That's the most insane statement I have heard in a very long time and flies in the face of reality.

unless you think centrist want absolute Fed control of everything

I'm just going by the US history. The GOP was the party that made welfare, OSHA, the EPA, and other great ideas come into policy. Now, they just want to run up debt using conservative economic and budget approaches.

 

[Samson]

Here's how it manifests: Most Americans are not hardcore partisans, they're not going to agree with/defend to the death their party on every issue. Different overall philosophies? Sure, great. But from an independent perspective, I can tell you that both parties look like wild-eyed zealots right now and are not very attractive.

The fact is, there ARE other third parties, and Americans may vote for their candidates, e.g. Ross Perot, without whom Clinton would probably never had been elected.

But is there a CENTRIST party? What exactly would the platform of a, "centrist party be?"

Would a Centrist party simply adopt a anti-Republican, ant-Democrat platform?

I hate to mention specifics, because the intelligence of the Average USMB poster will only allow them to use them to change the topic, but can anyone imagine how a Centrist Political Platform would be composed?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Only two things belong in the middle of the road, yellow stripes and dead armadillos.

and only one thing resides and belongs on the shoulders .....those who cant get along with anyone with a different view and whose mantra is...."if you dont agree with us and dont like what we like....**** you".......

The irony of that statement just flies right over your head, doesn't it?

The ultimate essence of the centrist's supposedly non-existent ideology is precisely the same as that of the leftist yahoo: intellectual, moral, cultural and political relativism.

Two diametrically opposed ideas can be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference. Now, of course, that's utter claptrap as no one can explain how such a thing could possibly be so. But there you have it: the gumball irrationalism of the unexamined life.

Duhhhhhhhhh. We'll just mix a little bit of Lefty with a little bit of Righty, a little bit of false with a little bit of true.

And what's that spell?

Error.

i guess you must be one of them shoulder dwellers.....you people have a hard time comprehending how someone can possibly not be either all left or all right on their views....gives you a ******* headache thinking about it,doesnt it?....

Right. That's it. You got me all figured out. LOL! Here, have a gumball: Were a Centrist 3rd party to form would you support it Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

thats all a gumball?.....do i at least get a bowl of soup with that?....

 

[Shanty]

Here's how it manifests: Most Americans are not hardcore partisans, they're not going to agree with/defend to the death their party on every issue. Different overall philosophies? Sure, great. But from an independent perspective, I can tell you that both parties look like wild-eyed zealots right now and are not very attractive.

The fact is, there ARE other third parties, and Americans may vote for their candidates, e.g. Ross Perot, without whom Clinton would probably never had been elected.

But is there a CENTRIST party? What exactly would the platform of a, "centrist party be?"

Would a Centrist party simply adopt a anti-Republican, ant-Democrat platform?

I hate to mention specifics, because the intelligence of the Average USMB poster will only allow them to use them to change the topic, but can anyone imagine how a Centrist Political Platform would be composed?

We already have the Democratic Party. We don't have a party that goes to the left, really.

 

[Samson]

Here's how it manifests: Most Americans are not hardcore partisans, they're not going to agree with/defend to the death their party on every issue. Different overall philosophies? Sure, great. But from an independent perspective, I can tell you that both parties look like wild-eyed zealots right now and are not very attractive.

The fact is, there ARE other third parties, and Americans may vote for their candidates, e.g. Ross Perot, without whom Clinton would probably never had been elected.

But is there a CENTRIST party? What exactly would the platform of a, "centrist party be?"

Would a Centrist party simply adopt a anti-Republican, ant-Democrat platform?

I hate to mention specifics, because the intelligence of the Average USMB poster will only allow them to use them to change the topic, but can anyone imagine how a Centrist Political Platform would be composed?

We already have the Democratic Party. We don't have a party that goes to the left, really.

Left, Right, whatever labels are slapped on are placed by the opposition, and as previously mentioned are becoming more transparent each election cycle. Rather than the absurd name-calling, voters want solutions.

 

[Shanty]

Here's how it manifests: Most Americans are not hardcore partisans, they're not going to agree with/defend to the death their party on every issue. Different overall philosophies? Sure, great. But from an independent perspective, I can tell you that both parties look like wild-eyed zealots right now and are not very attractive.

The fact is, there ARE other third parties, and Americans may vote for their candidates, e.g. Ross Perot, without whom Clinton would probably never had been elected.

But is there a CENTRIST party? What exactly would the platform of a, "centrist party be?"

Would a Centrist party simply adopt a anti-Republican, ant-Democrat platform?

I hate to mention specifics, because the intelligence of the Average USMB poster will only allow them to use them to change the topic, but can anyone imagine how a Centrist Political Platform would be composed?

We already have the Democratic Party. We don't have a party that goes to the left, really.

Left, Right, whatever labels are slapped on are placed by the opposition, and as previously mentioned are becoming more transparent each election cycle. Rather than the absurd name-calling, voters want solutions.

If voters wanted solutions, they'd pay way more attention to who they vote for. There's be fewer huge swings in midterm elections, and less reliance by parties to use bullshit to get voters.
Anyway, I take a dim view of third parties. They just don't do anything except act as spoilers for their own values. The US Constitution itself makes the legislature prone to only have two parties. If we had a proportionally representative legislature, we might see far different results. Even the Presidency is prone to one party or the other without something like the Condorcet Method to elect the Executive.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Only two things belong in the middle of the road, yellow stripes and dead armadillos.

and only one thing resides and belongs on the shoulders .....those who cant get along with anyone with a different view and whose mantra is...."if you dont agree with us and dont like what we like....**** you".......

The irony of that statement just flies right over your head, doesn't it?

The ultimate essence of the centrist's supposedly non-existent ideology is precisely the same as that of the leftist yahoo: intellectual, moral, cultural and political relativism.

Two diametrically opposed ideas can be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference. Now, of course, that's utter claptrap as no one can explain how such a thing could possibly be so. But there you have it: the gumball irrationalism of the unexamined life.

Duhhhhhhhhh. We'll just mix a little bit of Lefty with a little bit of Righty, a little bit of false with a little bit of true.

And what's that spell?

Error.

i guess you must be one of them shoulder dwellers.....you people have a hard time comprehending how someone can possibly not be either all left or all right on their views....gives you a ******* headache thinking about it,doesnt it?....

Right. That's it. You got me all figured out. LOL! Here, have a gumball: Were a Centrist 3rd party to form would you support it Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

thats all a gumball?.....do i at least get a bowl of soup with that?....

No soup for you! : )

 

[Samson]

If voters wanted solutions, they'd pay way more attention to who they vote for. There's be fewer huge swings in midterm elections, and less reliance by parties to use bullshit to get voters.
Anyway, I take a dim view of third parties. They just don't do anything except act as spoilers for their own values. The US Constitution itself makes the legislature prone to only have two parties. If we had a proportionally representative legislature, we might see far different results. Even the Presidency is prone to one party or the other without something like the Condorcet Method to elect the Executive.

Not really.

Voters normally have very few choices about "who they vote for."

For example, Presidential Debates.

How many third party candidates are invited to appear?

You make another interesting point about constitutionality and a "proportionally representative legislature." Do you know how many people each legislature represented when the constitution was written? Hint: It wasn't the nearly 800,000 constituents that it is today: How can any third party be distinguished in a heard like this? It cannot. This is hardly the representative government that the founders of the USA envisioned.

 

[Youch]

A Centrist borrows elements from both the Left and the Right and blends them into a comprehensive whole.

A Centrist is not married to one ideology and exists in the Real World, beyond the realm of polar opposites.

As usual, The Truth (including Political Truth [functionality]) lies somewhere in the Middle - a.k.a. the Center.

So, in other words, a person who abides by no moral conviction, who has not adopted nor understands philosophy, and whose compass is broken...

Whatever in the world leads you to believe that a Centrist is a person with no moral conviction, or is a person lacking in the understanding or practice or philosophy, or who lacks a compass?

A Centrist is merely someone who believes that the Left has some worthwhile answers and who also believes that the RIght has some worthwhile answers - to different kinds of problems, anyway.

There is nothing immoral nor intellectually nor philosophically lacking in taking some pages from both play-books.

...This real world' of which you speak is definitely real. And that we have a large portion of our society ignorant and apathetic to such principles...

Thus has it always been.

...for the sake of 'not being extreme' is dangerous on the face of it. The 'can't make up their mind' crowd are the folks easily swayed by populism. Dangerous!...

Most folks are far too busy earning their bread and enjoying their families and living their lives to bother with extremism.

Being a Centrist does not mean that one cannot make up one's mind.

Being a Centrist means that you adopt some of the ideology of both Left and Right, and usually requires far more thought and mind-making-up than is usually accorded to your average partisan lemming.

..."Comprehensive whole??" Mule fritters! To assert that the "truth lies in the middle" is to ignore the historical and inevitable danger of modern liberalism/Statism/fascism/socialism/etc...

Spoken like a true partisan hack.

There is no point in conducting an exchange with someone who is blind and deaf to his own side's faults and who is also blind and deaf to his adversary's strong points.

...Liberalism takes things away from my family. Conservatism takes nothing away from my family...

There is no point in conducting an exchange with someone who is blind and deaf to his own side's faults and who is also blind and deaf to his adversary's strong points.

...Our social contract, our Constitution, is about the most "compromise" I'm willing to accept.

There is no point in conducting an exchange in a political context with someone who is blind and deaf to the need for compromise.

There are very few absolutes in politics.

An inability to find a middle ground and to compromise is a formula for deadlock which any living, breathing Republic will quickly bulldoze over in order to function in the Real World.

I never mentioned partisanship. On the contrary, I made a clear distinction earlier in this thread.

Compromise is a political term, necessary in the course of it. Never claimed otherwise.

Tell me, what is the fault of conservatism?? You keep repeating that it exists. Heck, I'd be happy if you could provide an accurate definition of the term.

You claim being a centrist is adopting portions from either ideology. To do so is to not have a compass. Now where I think many people keep getting hung up, despite my feeble attempts at making the distinction, is that political centrists fight for compromise to advance legislation. That is politics within political parties.

Perhaps I've not made myself clear (after all, so many others cannot all be obtuse). Being succinct too often leaves things out. Let me try again. In terms of getting something "done" in Congress requires compromise, as both parties, as corrupt and self-serving as they are, hold differing over all view points necessary to pander to special interest groups, and the folks doing that often claim to be "centrist." Why, because it is appealing to large portions of our country. It sounds nice. It lacks the smell of "extremist" and thus it sells. This is the reality, and I find it to be a fatal flaw, as it has almost always taken us away from the Constitution. What I've been attepting to discuss, are the underpinnings, the foundation, of political philosophy. Once made aware, I believe most folks have the ability to discern one from the other, and the twain shall never meet, as they are very much opposed to each other. Thus, a "3rd, Centrist Party" could not possibly stand on principle other than compromise for compromise sake, which isn't a philosophy at all. Capitualtion and compromise, AWAY from principle, is dangerous, and I think we live in a nation rife with decades of just that.

Now, you can talk about there being no point in discussing this. Okay. I find that weak. This is, to me, too important not to discuss. Many here may not care to drill down like this, but I have no doubt lurkers will find value in it. I'll keep attempting to explain, as I think this is important.

 

[Pogo]

We can reduce this to the really simple.

These two sentences:

You claim being a centrist is adopting portions from either ideology. To do so is to not have a compass.

-- represent a non sequitur.

Cheers.

 

[Youch]

We can reduce this to the really simple.

These two sentences:

You claim being a centrist is adopting portions from either ideology. To do so is to not have a compass.

-- represent a non sequitur.

Cheers.

When you say we, are you referring to the mouse in your pocket?

When you assume the position of the willfully ignorant by ignoring my point, by "reducing" my point to something other than my point, to something else that came out of you, something "really simple," haven't you just admitted that your quill is empty? You cannot even address my points with counter-points?

If you can argue my points, do so!! I relish the challenge. But you didn't. Otherwise, all you got is typical, micro-parsing, dismissive, intolerance.

Come on, P-Stick, debate the issues, not the debater.....

 

[Pogo]

Those are your words, are they not??

Well your premise does not follow from your conclusion. It has no bridge. That means your "issue" is imaginary.
Can't make it simpler than that.

Sure as hell shortened up the nested quote, didn't it?

That's gratitude for ya...

 

[Statistikhengst]

Here's how it manifests: Most Americans are not hardcore partisans, they're not going to agree with/defend to the death their party on every issue. Different overall philosophies? Sure, great. But from an independent perspective, I can tell you that both parties look like wild-eyed zealots right now and are not very attractive.

The fact is, there ARE other third parties, and Americans may vote for their candidates, e.g. Ross Perot, without whom Clinton would probably never had been elected.

But is there a CENTRIST party? What exactly would the platform of a, "centrist party be?"

Would a Centrist party simply adopt a anti-Republican, ant-Democrat platform?

I hate to mention specifics, because the intelligence of the Average USMB poster will only allow them to use them to change the topic, but can anyone imagine how a Centrist Political Platform would be composed?

That is a bald faced lie.

Two-way polling in 1992 showed that Clinton came out of the convention with a 10 point lead over incumbent George H. W. Bush, that lead expanded to as far as +13, and then, when Ross Perot RE-ENTERED the race, that lead shrunk to about +6. But it was Bush 41 who landed at a measly 37% in 1992, not Clinton. In fact, on the eve of the election in 1992, CNN posted TWO polls: a three way poll, showing Clinton 44 - Bush 38 - Perot 16 (makes 98), and a strict two way poll: Clinton 55 - Bush 45.

Without Perot, Clinton would have easily sailed over 50%. Easily.

 

[auditor0007]

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.

There really is no such thing as a centrist, but there are many people who fall somewhere between the far left and far right. There are also many who may be more conservative on fiscal issues but liberal on social issues. Where do we put all these people? Just making a "Centrist" party does not solve anything. On top of that, having a legitimate third party would do nothing good for politics in America because our system really is set up to work best with a two party system.