Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-28-2019, 01:12 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by chargerrich View Post
* Single Payer Healthcare - While I agree the government sucks at handling many programs and waste is generally increased. That inefficiency is vastly outweighed by the corruption and greed of privatization. While I still support the Adam Smith laissez faire economic model in many areas, healthcare and retirement are not among them.

* Gun Control - I own guns. I support the 2nd amendment but cannot understand the conservative logic that anyone (Dems) will take away your guns. It is hyperbolic and
republican scare tactic. While I think criminals will - 99% of the time - get guns regardless of any controls, if better background checks and some safety standards (fingerprint locks for example) keep one child of shooting themself or others, the time cost is worth it. And automatic weapons, there is no argument for this IMO.

* I support our military and defense budget (mostly for our servicemen and new technology) but acknowledge we have wasted billions of dollars that could have been used to help our citizens.

* Decriminalization of Drugs - From Harry Anslinger to Richard Nixon to Jeff Session this "War on Drugs" is one of the most ridiculuous and wasteful efforts in American history. I do not use drugs (other than alcohol from time to time) but this issue has ALWAYS been a pawn for Racism (Ansligner) and Anti-War Counter Culture (Nixon). The prison privatization explosion and our backwards thinking of rehabilitation show a sad state of understanding and rationalization.
You know you're a Democrat, right?
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #52  
Old 02-28-2019, 01:28 PM
HookerChemical is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Another fun way to divvy ourselves up is the Pew Political Typologies. Take their quiz! No "centrist" label there. Instead these groupings. (As much as I think of myself as only slightly Left of center I fall out as "Solid Liberal" ... not so much so compared to some here.)
I always have issues with the wording or framing on these types of quizzes, and this one was no exception. For example, my choices were the following:

Quote:
The obstacles that once made it harder for women than men to get ahead are now largely gone
Quote:
There are still significant obstacles that make it harder for women to get ahead than men
This is asking me whether I agree more with “Bears shit in the woods” or “The pope is Catholic.”
Many obstacles that make it harder for women to get ahead are now largely gone. This is a true statement. Women can vote, they are not legally barred from most jobs, etc…
But…
There are still significant obstacles. I work in engineering, so I see how they’re treated differently in a traditionally male dominated field. The obstacles are not the old rigid ones. They’re softer, but they’re there.

There’s a track with 100 hurdles in one lane and one hurdle in lane two. 90 are removed from lane 1. Most of the hurdles, but there are still significantly more hurdles in lane 1.

In the end, I pick the second option, but I really wish these types of quizzes would clean up their wording.
  #53  
Old 02-28-2019, 01:51 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
@ OP — You responded to this "hardcore" viewpoint as though it weren't just laugh fodder. Is this what American "centrists" now think our politics come down to? Trying to choose between Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh on the one hand, and Josef Stalin and Pol Pot on the other hand?
And again, my friend offered his own viewpoint almost as laugh fodder. Although he wasn't laughing, he absolutely knows he's far outside of the mainstream and isn't taken seriously. His point was that people need to stop calling AOC and Bernie Sanders extremists, because they don't advocate anything like what a real extremist like him advocates.
  #54  
Old 02-28-2019, 02:14 PM
ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
chargerrich, why do you complain that the Democrats are going "too far left" when those leftist positions are essentially the same ones you go on to tell us you believe in?

What has happened in your life to poison the name and the party for you?
  #55  
Old 02-28-2019, 09:55 PM
sps49sd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
The Feinstein quote was in reference assault-type weapons, not guns generally. Those saying otherwise are guilty of "you didn't build thatism".
No, read more of what she has said. She will refer to the damage done to Harvey Milk by a handgun- not an 'assault weapon', not a hunting rifle- and say things like "I know from first-hand experience what damage ... weapons can do to bodies. I have a deep belief that these weapons are antithetical to our values."

I think she said what she meant, then walked it back later.
  #56  
Old 02-28-2019, 10:51 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
No, read more of what she has said. She will refer to the damage done to Harvey Milk by a handgun- not an 'assault weapon', not a hunting rifle- and say things like "I know from first-hand experience what damage ... weapons can do to bodies. I have a deep belief that these weapons are antithetical to our values."

I think she said what she meant, then walked it back later.
I have a deep belief that these weapons are antithetical to our values. That doesn't mean I want to confiscate legal guns. That's the kind of leap that devalues the discussion and convinces liberals that conservatives can't be rational on the subject.
  #57  
Old 02-28-2019, 11:11 PM
Littleman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,080
Just IMO, bear in mind I've just been researching party affiliation and stances the past couple weeks but it seems to me you have the views of a Democrat who is a senior and possibly wealthy.
An ideological Democrat, but with fears of the government reaching in your pocket.

The only republican I know of who kind of fits you would be Bill Weld, who really seems to be republican in name only and had a stint as libertarian likely because he couldn't get support of Rs on account of being a Democrat and couldn't get support of D's on account of having always ran on republican ticket.

To be fair though, I've only skimmed the out of date, link on him here
http://www.ontheissues.org/bill_weld.htm

And a couple articles.

Last edited by Littleman; 02-28-2019 at 11:12 PM.
  #58  
Old 02-28-2019, 11:35 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by chargerrich View Post
Number 4 specifically is a near perfect example of why the ultra-progressive/socialist movement scares the HELL out of me....
That is - to my way of thinking - every bit as crazy as about anything the right has thrown out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chargerrich View Post
Having just watched Alex Jones on JRE #1255 I can say with some definity that Alex Jones is either the bat shit craziest person on planet Earth or a master showman the likes we have not seen since PT Barum.
So you reject Alex Jones (whose views ARE approved by some Rs including Donald Trump) but fear that the views of LHoD's batshit friend (who doesn't even post on Yahoo blogs) are relevant to an evaluation of the Democratic Party. Do you see why I find this incongruous?

@ chargerrich — Can you give us some idea of what your main sources for news are?
  #59  
Old 02-28-2019, 11:55 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
I have a deep belief that these weapons are antithetical to our values. That doesn't mean I want to confiscate legal guns. That's the kind of leap that devalues the discussion and convinces liberals that conservatives can't be rational on the subject.
Moreover, even if the fiction was true, a Democrat having a belief does not make it a party belief or plan. There in fact are Democrats who would like to make handguns illegal. We have extremists among us. And those who are against any increased regulation. Most who want some new regulation and better enforcement of the laws we have. The party is big enough to hold them all and strong enough to survive the disagreements.
  #60  
Old 03-01-2019, 12:30 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,158
The ability to embrace people with differing views is a strength of the Democratic Party.

OTOH, I was stunned at the first Republican debate 3+ years ago when Megyn Kelly started her first question with "Of course as Republicans all of you want to repeal Obamacare, but tell us ...[blah blah]."
  #61  
Old 03-01-2019, 12:37 AM
Jragon's Avatar
Jragon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 10,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
It brings up a very interesting point - who are the moderates (centrists) today and what positions do they tend to hold?

And of course we have "Survey says!"
The poll goes on to list the positions they tend to hold.

You are in that mix, to the right on some and the left on others.

Another fun way to divvy ourselves up is the Pew Political Typologies. Take their quiz! No "centrist" label there. Instead these groupings. (As much as I think of myself as only slightly Left of center I fall out as "Solid Liberal" ... not so much so compared to some here.)

It's not surprising you get lumped with the super far left; the quiz heavily breaks down if you're extremely far left (or far right), because it only presents two options which are extremely tied to a very narrow mainstream subset of political discourse.
  #62  
Old 03-01-2019, 08:11 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,714
I had to skip over most of this thread in the interest of a timely chore but my advice is that we can't get anything done at all as long as an incompetent madman is the president. Removing him needs to be the top priority for all centrists. (I'm not one)

Last edited by Red Wiggler; 03-01-2019 at 08:12 AM.
  #63  
Old 03-01-2019, 08:16 AM
Tee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,516
I'm a centrist, too. There is something about being terrified of AOC, but not the dumpster fire in our executive branch, nor the red tide of enablers in the legislative branch, that makes me think this is a new twist on centrism not previously explored. That Atlantic article cited is from 2014. The Obama vs. Romney era was indeed prime time for moderates, but we are years past that and all of those moderates have gone through Trump Vs. Clinton when we started having national paroxysms.

I feel like this is someone caught in the war of messaging, or lost in what Matt Gaetz would call the Marketplace of Ideas, or a former Republican who can't afford health insurance or something. The middle is a big tent now and it's surprising who you run into these days, calling for unity.
  #64  
Old 03-01-2019, 09:00 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tee View Post
... That Atlantic article cited is from 2014. The Obama vs. Romney era was indeed prime time for moderates, but we are years past that and all of those moderates have gone through Trump Vs. Clinton ...
Even then moderates/centrists were much more commonly identifying and voting D.

So here's what's facing centrists.

1) The parties and those more politically engaged are both more polarized than before. "Moderates" are thus less likely to feel comfortable with either party than before. "Independent" as a label grows in popularity, especially among those who are not so highly engaged.

2) Team R is currently not at all centrist and has actively driven many of its leaners who were centrist out of the fold. And they are putting into place governance that is representative of the views of a minority of the citizen, in ways that will be very slow to reverse. (SCOTUS anyone?) Very few on Team R can afford to vote for other than an extreme Right perspective; the party is owned by Trump.

3) Team D is less centrist than it had been but at least still has room for moderates within it. And even if the most progressive of its potential presidential nominees gets the nod (you pick who you think that is) the ability to execute the more progressive items will be very limited ... even if there is a D majority in both House and Senate. (See how hard it was for Obama to move even very moderate legislation forward in his first two years with that circumstance.)

A moderate who wants moderate governance must recognize that governance has lurched far from the center to the far Right and that even an extreme progressive with great skills at getting things done in the executive with majorities in Congress would be hard pressed to do much more than shift the ship slightly away from that hard Right direction towards the center.

Any voter who wants moderate governance needs to work hard to get the current GOP out of power. The exact positions of the other candidate are actually immaterial to achieving that outcome.
  #65  
Old 03-01-2019, 10:13 AM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,165
Bumper sticker version: Vote for Parties, not for People
  #66  
Old 03-01-2019, 10:35 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Bumper sticker version: Vote for Parties, not for People
This would be an interesting discussion on its own. We have a tradition of celebrating the act of voting for the individual who we feel will best represent us but there's no doubt to me that a system that paves the way for "individual instead of party" comes with its own drawbacks.
  #67  
Old 03-01-2019, 11:27 AM
Tee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
1) The parties and those more politically engaged are both more polarized than before. "Moderates" are thus less likely to feel comfortable with either party than before. "Independent" as a label grows in popularity, especially among those who are not so highly engaged.

2) Team R is currently not at all centrist and has actively driven many of its leaners who were centrist out of the fold. And they are putting into place governance that is representative of the views of a minority of the citizen, in ways that will be very slow to reverse. (SCOTUS anyone?) Very few on Team R can afford to vote for other than an extreme Right perspective; the party is owned by Trump.

3) Team D is less centrist than it had been but at least still has room for moderates within it. And even if the most progressive of its potential presidential nominees gets the nod (you pick who you think that is) the ability to execute the more progressive items will be very limited ... even if there is a D majority in both House and Senate. (See how hard it was for Obama to move even very moderate legislation forward in his first two years with that circumstance.)

A moderate who wants moderate governance must recognize that governance has lurched far from the center to the far Right and that even an extreme progressive with great skills at getting things done in the executive with majorities in Congress would be hard pressed to do much more than shift the ship slightly away from that hard Right direction towards the center.

Any voter who wants moderate governance needs to work hard to get the current GOP out of power. The exact positions of the other candidate are actually immaterial to achieving that outcome.
I'm also an independent, and have been for many years, in this little purple state. I don't like either party. That insulates me from their messaging to some degree, and I must take that for granted.

It would make sense given the times that the middle, as a cohort, has moved several miles to the right to reflect the fact that right-wing goes all the way to the edges and over to Infowars. I can understand why individuals under this middle umbrella, now, are likely to possess more of a rightward tilt than in previous years and this is agreeable to a point. But OP lists nine (“conservative”) items on page one that look like they came straight from wingnut radio, one being “I don't support healthcare for illegal immigrants.” (?) And he finds AOC terrifying. This is not the middle, I don't what the hell it is. It has no business representing centrism. That is all.

It's the second time I've run into this on the board in a month.
  #68  
Old 03-01-2019, 01:21 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,815
Another article of some salience. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...obsidebar=sb_4

Idea is there are in facts many moderates within the D tent but they are moderate in different enough ways that they likely won’t coalesce around any one candidate.
__________________
Oy.
  #69  
Old 03-01-2019, 05:26 PM
Tee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Another article of some salience. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...obsidebar=sb_4

Idea is there are in facts many moderates within the D tent but they are moderate in different enough ways that they likely won’t coalesce around any one candidate.
Interesting. And salient, thank you. Check the quote by one Michael Wear:

Quote:
“I want a Democrat who cares about and will act on climate change, immigration and criminal justice reform because they are real justice issues, not because they are convenient new weapons in the culture wars,” said Michael Wear, a self-described moderate Democrat who directed outreach to religious groups for Obama’s 2012 campaign. “And I want a Democrat who will at the very least respect religious freedom and our national disagreement around abortion.”6
Who is Michael Wear:
Quote:
Michael Wear is the founder of Public Square Strategies LLC, and a leading expert and strategist at the intersection of faith, politics and American public life. <snip>Today, Public Square Strategies LLC is a sought-after firm that helps religious organizations, political organizations, businesses and others effectively navigate the rapidly changing American religious and political landscape.<snip snip>
He serves on the national board of Bethany Christian Services, the nation's largest adoption agency, and holds an honorary position at the University of Birmingham’s Cadbury Center for the Public Understanding of Religion.
What is Bethany Christian Services? (per Snopes)
Quote:
Christian Non-Profit Faces Scrutiny Over Government Foster Care Contract for Separated Children
Bethany Christian Services is a prominent non-profit provider of adoption and foster services, as well as pregnancy counselling. As its name suggests, the organization is led by devout Christians, and states that part of its missionis to “demonstrate the love and compassion of Jesus Christ by protecting children, empowering youth, and strengthening families through quality social services.”
They're the people that placed loads of separated kids in foster homes and maybe didn't keep track of them. Maybe. :shrug: We can't really know. But there he is, an evangelical white man, by definition pro-life and anti-LGBT and a believer in culture wars, with a slight problem of missing brown children, making an appearance in the 538 blog as a moderate Democrat and issuing demands. He's a moderate like I'm a fairy princess.

Why, I ask you, and the room, would both this man and this blog believe that he represents moderation?
  #70  
Old 03-01-2019, 06:23 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
That's not at all what he said.
That is, in fact, exactly what he said. He said that if someone is labeled a terrorist they should have no right to defense council, no right to not testify against themselves, no right to confront witnesses, no right to a jury trial, no right to have a 'not guilty' verdict mean anything but 'start the next show trial'. Most critically, he stated that they should be presumed guilty - that simply slapping the label 'terrorist' on someone means the government should not have the burden of proving that they did anything wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chargerrich View Post
* You apparently have not read any of my comments stating that terrorists should have human rights that prevent torture and killing.
If they have no presumption of innocence

The idea that they should have 'human rights' is utterly meaningless if they have no right to due process. Without trials and

[quote]* I do not claim to be an expert on international law, but I would posit that there are one to perhaps many international human rights laws or wartime codes of conduct, et al. that could be adopted for terrorist suspects/crimes.

Quote:
* How on Earth could you surmize "Including citizens of the US" from anything I have stated? Talk about lost in translation...
Because I can slap the label 'terrorist' on anyone, there's nothing magical that makes it not apply to US citizens, and in fact a lot of groups in the US are correctly referred to as terrorist groups. And since there's no presumption of innocence and no right to have a lawyer under your system for someone being declared a terrorist, how would you even meaningfully argue that you're a citizen?

Quote:
* And I may be wrong, but determining if one is in fact a US citizen should be fairly easy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/29/u...-alsheikh.html
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/03/us/us...ice/index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr (Canadian not American but shows what happens)

Quote:
Somehow - for reasons I fail to understand - my comments that terrorists should not be given the same rights as US citizens has been twisted to mean that terrorists should just be tortured and killed at will... something I have CLEARLY stated is both wrong and undesired from my vantage point.
Your statement that if someone is labeled a 'terrorist' they should be presumed guilty and have no right to a meaningful defense in court means exactly that the government should be able to do whatever it wants to someone labeled a 'terrorist', including torturing and killing them at will, like has been done at Guantanamo Bay.
  #71  
Old 03-01-2019, 07:04 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tee View Post
... He's a moderate like I'm a fairy princess.

Why, I ask you, and the room, would both this man and this blog believe that he represents moderation?
Not sure how you want to define moderation.

Is it being in what you consider the middle on all axes?

Is it having some balance of positions that are some left of that point that you believe is center and some to the right?

I am sympathetic to the article’s position favoring the latter, which is why so defined moderates will not necessarily coalesce together. One can be rightward on religious issues (as are some Hispanic and Black voters who vote D as well as this man) but leftward on others. Another could be right on gun rights but left on everything else.

They are not able to be described as right or left. If not centrist and moderate what word should we use? “Mixed bags of positions” just is not going to get traction.

Our OP is a mild case of this but with only a few positions that go rightward and more that are pretty liberal. Identifying the former does not invalidate the latter.

I don’t know in what ways you are like a fairy princess. Are we talking Tinkerbell world or Tolkien? The newer Tinkerbell or the original?

Last edited by Bone; 03-02-2019 at 10:26 AM. Reason: Fixed quote attribution
  #72  
Old 03-01-2019, 07:55 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by chargerrich View Post
Some of my more conservative leanings include:

* I do not support Univseral Basic Income
You might be surprised to learn that there is a not inconsiderable number of conservatives who also support a Universal Basic Income and not just some fringe people. Conservative economic luminaries such as Milton Friedman support a UBI.

And, as it happens, some liberals oppose it. In short, I would not chalk this one up to one side or the other just yet.

- The Conservative Case for a Guaranteed Basic Income

- The Paradox of Universal Basic Income

- Universal basic income: Even conservative economist says it's 'our best hope'
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 03-01-2019 at 07:58 PM.
  #73  
Old 03-01-2019, 09:24 PM
Tee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Not sure how you want to define moderation.

Is it being in what you consider the middle on all axes?

Is it having some balance of positions that are some left of that point that you believe is center and some to the right?

I am sympathetic to the article’s position favoring the latter, which is why so defined moderates will not necessarily coalesce together. One can be rightward on religious issues (as are some Hispanic and Black voters who vote D as well as this man) but leftward on others. Another could be right on gun rights but left on everything else.

They are not able to be described as right or left. If not centrist and moderate what word should we use? “Mixed bags of positions” just is not going to get traction.

Our OP is a mild case of this but with only a few positions that go rightward and more that are pretty liberal. Identifying the former does not invalidate the latter.

I don’t know in what ways you are like a fairy princess. Are we talking Tinkerbell world or Tolkien? The newer Tinkerbell or the original?
I didn't bother to check a box for President in 2012 as I had no preference. For the second time in my life, I left it up to the gods and my neighbors. That is centrism. Things are different today, I'm much less willing to compromise on certain issues, and far less tolerant of certain partisans, so I won't mind shedding the label when the label does not apply (these are not normal times.) The label is, or was, only shorthand for a place on the political spectrum, not interchangeable with “moderate”.

“Moderate” to me suggests average, garden variety, no frills. I don't think an average Democrat makes snide remarks about other Democrats and their culture warring. But this one did and that's what is interesting. I'd call him “conservative”.
  #74  
Old 03-01-2019, 09:38 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tee View Post
I didn't bother to check a box for President in 2012 as I had no preference. For the second time in my life, I left it up to the gods and my neighbors. That is centrism.
That is not "centrism", that is indecisiveness. Not remotely the same thing.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #75  
Old 03-01-2019, 09:55 PM
Tee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
That is not "centrism", that is indecisiveness. Not remotely the same thing.
Not remotely the same thing, because....?
  #76  
Old 03-01-2019, 10:14 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tee View Post
Not remotely the same thing, because....?
Centrism is an ideology.

Leaving it, "...up to the gods and my neighbors..." is gambling.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 03-01-2019 at 10:14 PM.
  #77  
Old 03-01-2019, 10:37 PM
Tee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Centrism is an ideology.
Can you describe it?
  #78  
Old 03-01-2019, 11:16 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tee View Post

“Moderate” to me suggests average ...
Average on all dimensions or average ... on average? I suspect very few are average in all axes, in all dimensions, but many more are average on average.

Sort of like students all with average GPAs but one who does better in math and poorer in science and another who does better in English and worse in Spanish ... so on. They are all average students but they are not all alike. An average student does not necessarily have an average grade in all classes and a centrist voter is not necessarily in the center of every issue.

What defines them is what they place the highest values on.

When push comes to shove do they vote for the person who wants to act on climate change, immigration and criminal justice reform, even if they do not share their views on abortion and "religious freedom" ... or do the latter take priority over the former? Or do they passively let others decide for them?

The last one is clearly not centrism.
  #79  
Old 03-01-2019, 11:50 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Does anybody that we've ever heard of hold these views? Or anyone who holds an elective office higher than dogcatcher?
Nobody has proposed a law saying that there should be a maximum of 5:1 between CEO pay and lowest worker pay, but we always see stats posted about how in 1950 it was only Y:1 but today it is X:1 with no further elaboration on why that is an important thing to mention.

Likewise a poster upthread believes that owning handguns in antithetical to our values, but then states that he would not criminalize them.

To make these statements imply a hostility towards the object such as if I own a handgun, or believe that CEO pay disparity is not indicative of anything negative, then perhaps I don't want to vote for that person, even though that person did not make the 5:1 proposal?

It would be like if I said that illegal immigration has risen from X in 1950 to Y in 2019. Would you think I was giving out an important little trivia factoid for amusement? Or would you think that I thought illegal immigration was becoming a problem? If you called me out on it, I don't think it would be proper for me to say that I wasn't making any particular point.
  #80  
Old 03-02-2019, 08:45 AM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tee View Post
Can you describe it?
Sure.

Quote:
In politics, centrism—the centre (British/Canadian/Australian English) or the center (American/Philippine English)—is a political outlook or specific position that involves acceptance or support of a balance of a degree of social equality and a degree of social hierarchy, while opposing political changes which would result in a significant shift of society strongly to either the left or the right.[1]

SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrism
You know you could Google it too right?
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #81  
Old 03-02-2019, 10:07 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Nobody has proposed a law saying that ...
Which is the point.

Someone whose personal beliefs are that abortion is morally repugnant but who is against making it illegal is very different than someone who wants to make it illegal.

Claiming that someone with personal beliefs that guns are bad and who still accepts that others have the right to believe otherwise and to own them responsibly is going to confiscate guns was what was objected to.

Sure you are free to not like someone’s beliefs that tour choice is a bad one. I’m pretty sure you disapprove of some of my choices. We can still allow each other the freedom to make what the other thinks is a poor decision.
  #82  
Old 03-02-2019, 11:25 AM
wguy123 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,804
I used to think I was a "centrist", but it was really a way for me to always claim that none of the problems of the day were my fault. I finally decided that it was a poor way to go through life. Pick a side, and work with that side.

Also, long, long ago I used to think I was a libertarian.
  #83  
Old 03-02-2019, 11:34 AM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Nobody has proposed a law saying that there should be a maximum of 5:1 between CEO pay and lowest worker pay, but we always see stats posted about how in 1950 it was only Y:1 but today it is X:1 with no further elaboration on why that is an important thing to mention.
You're reading the wrong articles or perhaps not bothering to go past the first paragraph. When I see this it's always in the context of a larger discussion of how income inequality is affecting society.

Quote:
Likewise a poster upthread believes that owning handguns in antithetical to our values, but then states that he would not criminalize them.

To make these statements imply a hostility towards the object such as if I own a handgun, or believe that CEO pay disparity is not indicative of anything negative, then perhaps I don't want to vote for that person, even though that person did not make the 5:1 proposal?
Or it could possibly mean that as a liberal I would honor the law of the land, instead of conservatives who approach anything they don't like by wanting to make it illegal, no matter how much popular support it has. (Homosexuality, marijuana, background checks, abortion, separation of church and state, ...)
  #84  
Old 03-02-2019, 03:28 PM
Dacien is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
>Gun Control - I own guns. I support the 2nd amendment but cannot understand the conservative logic that anyone (Dems) will take away your guns. It is hyperbolic and republican scare tactic.

Except for the Democrats such as Dianne Feinstein who have stated that, plus some Dopers. Most gun grabbers have learned to not say this outright.

Somewhat related, but support for banning semi-automatuc rifles is in the minority at 40 percent, but once you ask about a ban on the AR-15, it shoots up to 60 percent support. People oppose broad restrictions but are much more agreeable to specific gun grabs, even if there are hundreds of guns that operate exactly the same.
  #85  
Old 03-02-2019, 06:30 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by chargerrich View Post
You raise a good point, thanks for all the feedback.

I definitely like to think that I do align more with the democratic party but reflecting on my post I probably posited an incomplete view of my political leanings.

Some of my more conservative leanings include:

* I am pro tax reform (flat/consumer) - not likely to ever happen though
* I do not support healthcare for illegal immigrants
* I do support improved border security w/o the wall but understand the debate
* I generally (with some exception) disagree with affirmative action
* I do not support Univseral Basic Income
* I actually support increased tariffs on some countries
* I disagree with foreign terrorists given constitutional rights
* I am only ever so slightly against travel bans from terrorists countries
* I am pro-drone strikes against terrorists countries even realizing the casualties (keeping our soldiers safe being paramount)

I think my fear is the old guard democrats will give way to more of the hardcore progressives/socialists which I find every bit as scary (for very different reasons) as the far right.
Never gonna happen. Due to party discipline, the Republicans have historically displayed the tendency to place themselves in the clutches of whomever can grab and hold the majority of the power, but Democrats love to schism.

The day after the Republican Party ceases to exist, the Democratic Party will split like an atom of Fr223.
  #86  
Old 03-02-2019, 07:09 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey View Post
As a Canadian, your "hardcore progressive/socialists" are as threatening as warm milk.
Did the milk become warm by being heated, or by being left out on the counter?

Need answer fast.
  #87  
Old 03-02-2019, 07:58 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
You might be surprised to learn that there is a not inconsiderable number of conservatives who also support a Universal Basic Income and not just some fringe people. Conservative economic luminaries such as Milton Friedman support a UBI.
I would be surprised. I'd love to see some poll results supporting this thesis.

Or even one current GOP member of Congress speaking up on behalf of a UBI.
  #88  
Old 03-02-2019, 08:48 PM
Taomist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: N.O.T. Land!
Posts: 6,062
THANK you. I'm right there in the middle, too, tired of the pendulum's overarching swing back and forth.
__________________
Did she post that with a straight face?
  #89  
Old 03-02-2019, 08:52 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I would be surprised. I'd love to see some poll results supporting this thesis.

Or even one current GOP member of Congress speaking up on behalf of a UBI.
Gallup. 28% of Republicans support the idea. Fewer than Ds to be sure but not an insignificant number.

This is interesting. Among White UBI polls negative 26% among college educated whites but positive 2 among "white working class".

But another poll finds that "less than 17 percent of Trump voters in the survey supported the idea of an income-tax-funded UBI. Indeed, among those who voted for the Republican candidate, 64 percent strongly opposed the policy."

So some conservatives yes, but not the ones who voted for Trump I guess. Even though they are more commonly white working class. It seems contradictory to me but there it is.
  #90  
Old 03-02-2019, 10:36 PM
Tee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Sure.

You know you could Google it too right?
Wiki doesn't assert that centrism is an ideology like you did. It does say that some ideologies can be centrist.

What's the difference...an ideology would suggest that people are deliberately finding the midpoint in a controversy and staking a claim on it, for the sake of being the middle ground in a controversy. Which some might be doing, and which may be the focus of the WaPo article cited by madmonk28 that I can't access. I'm not sure. We do know that can be an institutional-type view that explains some of the complaints you hear about the media and political coverage. It follows a certain formula: the administration or a government official makes some false or batshit claim, and an opposition gathers in response with rebuttals, and the media dutifully presents both sides to the public in equal measure, on equal footing. Over and over again. That's a kind of ideological centrism.

Centrist people can be a different thing, they're just there, in the middle. Party or no party, they're likely to take offense at others who don't want illegal immigrants to get health care and question their humanity, ffs, not recruit them. That's just a general heads up.
  #91  
Old 03-03-2019, 01:35 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,158
Thinking would be easy, and strict ideologies all the rage if simple principles could be relied on, and details or quantitative effects were irrelevant. Here are some examples:

* Mr. A thinks the right to bear arms is inviolable. AR-15s? Ha! Everyone has the right to bazookas, anti-aircraft missiles, nukes and weaponized anthrax. It's all there in the Constitution.
* Ms. B wants the right to kill her fetus. The month before birth? Why not the month after birth? Age 10, age 20, whatever. If the kid is still living in my house then he/she is mine to dispose of.
* Mr. C wants to ban carcinogenics. We banned asbestos which was causing tens of thousands of cancer deaths per year, and similarly for secondhand smoke. But we need to ban paprika also; even its mildest forms can kill. Isn't all human life sacred? Isn't a single cancer death due to paprika too much?

I hope you get my point. If "centrism" means the ability to find a middle ground between hilariously extreme positions, then count me in!


Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Nobody has proposed a law saying that there should be a maximum of 5:1 between CEO pay and lowest worker pay, but we always see stats posted about how in 1950 it was only Y:1 but today it is X:1 with no further elaboration on why that is an important thing to mention....
To make these statements imply a hostility towards the object such as if I ... believe that CEO pay disparity is not indicative of anything negative, then perhaps I don't want to vote for that person, even though that person did not make the 5:1 proposal?
I notice you didn't deign to write real numbers, using "Y" and "X" (just like the guy opposed to all carcinogenics who isn't happy to reveal how many lives the banning of paprika would actually save).

Let me help. According to this source the CEO-worker wage ratio at big companies was 312:1 in 2017 and 20:1 in 1965. It appears that median worker, not lowest-paid worker, was used for the comparison. (Those figures are for the U.S.A. The ratios are much less in Europe.)

312 is significantly larger than 20. For those who see no problem I'll ask: 3000:1? 30,000:1? Is there any point beyond which you would see a problem? Or is this a matter of integrity to "principles." If the 2A gives the right to bear arms then combat helicopters and nuclear weapons are on the table. If it's good that a free-enterprise system doesn't impose identical wages for everyone, then the more disparity the better?

AFAIK, no American politician or opinion-maker outside the Yahoo lunatic fringes is proposing absolute salary caps. Instead the inequality is addressed with gradual measures, or tax policies.

The present U.S. tax code calls for 35% marginal tax at $210,000 and only 37% at $25,000,000. Is this best practice? Is the $25,000,000 earner doing only slightly better than the $210,000 earner? Bill Clinton proposed that salaries beyond some threshold ($1 million?) should not be deductible to the corporation. Perhaps that should be extended somehow to bonuses and stock options.

Some of us think that a dollar spent on food for a hungry human child is better spent than on feeding caviar to the cats of an indulgent billionaire. Nobody wants to steal the cat's caviar at gunpoint, but we might want to push the billionaire from a 37% bracket into 39% so we could fund subsidized childcare. Does that sentiment mean that we are Stalinist central planners?

Last edited by septimus; 03-03-2019 at 01:39 AM.
  #92  
Old 03-03-2019, 12:02 PM
sps49sd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
I have a deep belief that these weapons are antithetical to our values. That doesn't mean I want to confiscate legal guns. That's the kind of leap that devalues the discussion and convinces liberals that conservatives can't be rational on the subject.
I did not say you did. I said Dianne Feinstein, senior Senator from California, wants to ban firearms.
Except for those of her security detail, of course.
  #93  
Old 03-03-2019, 12:14 PM
sps49sd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
...Some of us think that a dollar spent on food for a hungry human child is better spent than on feeding caviar to the cats of an indulgent billionaire. Nobody wants to steal the cat's caviar at gunpoint, but we might want to push the billionaire from a 37% bracket into 39% so we could fund subsidized childcare. Does that sentiment mean that we are Stalinist central planners?
I think the tax rates are too low for higher incomes, too, but-
If you want to spend your dollar on for a hungry human child, go right ahead. That is different than wanting to spend someone else's dollar the way you would like; your billionaire can spend their own money as they want. And their taxes, at 35% or 39%, feed far more hungry human children than you or I could with our earnings over our entire lifetimes.
  #94  
Old 03-03-2019, 02:10 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
I did not say you did. I said Dianne Feinstein, senior Senator from California, wants to ban firearms.
Except for those of her security detail, of course.
Here's what Politifact says on the subject.

Does she want to ban some guns? Yes. Does every public actor in the U.S., including the NRA, want to ban some guns? Yes. The only difference is which set of guns they want banned. Any argument that doesn't include that qualification is disingenuous and not worthy of our time.
  #95  
Old 03-03-2019, 05:58 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
I think the tax rates are too low for higher incomes, too, but-If you want to spend your dollar on for a hungry human child, go right ahead.
Ah, the whole "Warren Buffet should just write a check to the government" canard. Or is it the "charities should do the work, not the government" positions.

Both issues have been discussed and discussed and most people not part of the Cato Institute realize that both positions are untenable. There is a reason that the government should be expected to handle certain things and a reason we as a people should be required to fund those efforts adequately.

Relevant to the OP: I was glad to see that Left Hand of Dorkness brought up the Overton Window. The fact is that window seems to have moved as far to the right as the country could bear and is now suddenly creaking slightly leftward.

It can be argued that means we are finally moving it to an area that better represents where we stand as a nation. To be sure, it was puzzling that Republicans kept winning elections while their actual positions on topics that are important to Americans have consistently skewed more extreme to the right than Americans would poll.

The false equivalence of a few congresscritters such as AOC are somehow the exact same as, say, The Tea Party was seems silly to me. The Tea Party got things done. Terrible things to be sure. Things I didn't agree with and things that the past decade have shown to not be beneficial to this country. They had enough power in the Republican caucus to give Boeher fits and usually acquiesce to their extremism. Whereas Pelosi may disagree with some positions and tactics of the freshman class but she probably won't call them assholes and what some may call a mixed record of dealing with them I charitably see as her balancing their enthusiasm with her ability to work the system.

My point is that those who say centrism is dead are wrong: The Democratic Party, thanks to the Overton Window, is a centrist party with a minority fringe that is slowly moving it to the left. Even when they have legislative control, they attempt (often misguidedly, in my opinion) to work with the opposition party.

The Republican Party, on the other hand, has mainstream views on most issues that are extreme to the right and an unwillingness to compromise unless you mean how someone like Susan Collins who talks a big game but reliably falls into line when she is needed. Being an ineffectual contrarian is literally the farthest to the center than a Republican on the national stage is allowed to be.

So supporting Democratic candidates should be easy for the OP. Even if that was just because they weren't Republicans would be enough as it stands now. Fortunately for the OP, that isn't the only reason,
  #96  
Old 03-03-2019, 06:00 PM
nate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 895
This reminds me of the George Carlin joke about drivers. Anyone who is driving faster than you is a maniac and anyone who is driving slower than you is a moron. I think this applies to someone's politics as well. We all know someone further left or right than us that we think is either nuts or purely evil, respectively. That doesn't make us centrists.

Enlightened centrists are just about the most annoying people I can think of. How can you pay attention to what is going on and still not pick a "side"?
  #97  
Old 03-04-2019, 09:04 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by nate View Post
Enlightened centrists are just about the most annoying people I can think of. How can you pay attention to what is going on and still not pick a "side"?
Nitpick: "Centrist" doesn't mean "unable to pick between the Ds and the Rs." I think I speak for many centrists here in saying there is no longer any doubt whatsoever which side we must support.
  #98  
Old 03-09-2019, 08:58 AM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
No, read more of what she has said. She will refer to the damage done to Harvey Milk by a handgun- not an 'assault weapon', not a hunting rifle- and say things like "I know from first-hand experience what damage ... weapons can do to bodies. I have a deep belief that these weapons are antithetical to our values."

I think she said what she meant, then walked it back later.
Note the use of the word "these". That word is used to indicate a subset of a greater whole. As in the phrase "These Republicans are morons" implying the existence of Republicans who are not morons. Your use of the phrase "walked it back" is pejorative, clarified might be more accurate.

Conversely, I am required to admire your ability to take something that someone actually said and tell us what they actually meant.
  #99  
Old 03-09-2019, 09:57 AM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
I think she said what she meant, then walked it back later.
Trump has walked back hundreds if not thousands of things he has said over his lifetime. I assume that means you believe he only meant the original saying and not any of the corrections. That must give you a very... interesting view of his convictions.
  #100  
Old 03-09-2019, 10:47 AM
The Tooth is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by chargerrich View Post
I would argue you are potentially taking my comments out of context, but that is likely fair game since I did not elaborate. I think US citizens are and should be given rights that are exclusive to their citizenship.

That does not mean I support terrorists having zero rights and I think some of the stuff coming out of Gitmo was horrific. Basic human rights should be afford to ... well all humans ... but I think everyone can agree that is a lower standard than US citizen rights.
Citizenship has nothing to do with it. The fifth amendment, to pick an example, applies to anyone under US jurisdiction. It says "persons", not "citizens". There are rights that apply only to citizens (I can't vote in the US, nor can I donate to a political candidate), but there are also those that apply to non-citizens as well.

Quote:
In my humble opinion, giving a terrorist the same rights as a US citizen would arguably cripple attempts to fight terrorism.
What's the argument?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017