Not only that, but according to Fox News, the Democrats are going to grab your meat! Sean Hannity told people to put meat into their freezers now because it might be valuable some day!*
*He might have had his tongue in cheek, but Fox in fact has said that Democrats will ban meat multiple times on multiple shows.
The Feinstein quote was in reference assault-type weapons, not guns generally. Those saying otherwise are guilty of “you didn’t build thatism”.
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.)
Canadian checking in here to say perhaps you have a Canadian point of view about this. We have voter ID but it is incredibly broad to the point where anyone who is trying to vote should be able to come up with one of the things on this long list:
If the US had voter ID rules along those lines, no one would have an issue with it. However, my understanding of voter ID rules in the US is that they are weaponized to prevent black people from voting due to the fear/knowledge that if they had the unquestioned right to vote Republicans might never win another election, ever.
Just chiming in to agree that you are well inside “the Democratic tent.” The idea that an intelligent citizen with moderate views like yourself would even consider voting for a Republican is very disheartening to me. 
I’ll comment on some of your points.
Most of us Democrats would be happy to support photo ID for voting if there was a sincere effort to make such IDs readily available to citizens. Instead the exact opposite is the case: the Republican Party institutes policies deliberately intended to suppress likely Democratic votes — they’ve said as much in so many words. As just one example, IIRC one state accepts gun permits as voter IDs (likely R voters) but rejects government-issued university student IDs (likely D voters). @ OP — Do you support GOP efforts to suppress Democratic voters?
Do you have a cite that Democrats are “against law enforcement”? 
As for AOC’s “ultra-left” ideas: Single-payer healthcare is an idea whose time has come. … But spending many tens of thousands on free college education for each and every American? I agree this sounds like a bad idea. Spoiler alert: It’s not going to happen anytime soon!
At this point in America’s political development, there are many citizens trapped in a FoxNews bubble, or embittered by their hatreds. I wish these bubble dwellers would talk to someone like you and become more sensible. But when I read your intelligent views, and then still see “At this time I truly have no idea how to vote in 2020”, it makes me very very sad and confused.
I insist on a broader perspective. Mike Pence would be the second-worst President in American history. So would Paul Ryan or whatever ape the GOP is likely to put forth.
In fact, with the GOP now fully embracing all manner of criminality, racism and support for kleptocrats, it is imperative that Democrats be given charge of the White House and Congress.
My own centrism is closer to the views of Mitt Romney — at least the old Mitt Romney before he was forced to prattle the right-wing line to keep his GOP membership — than to the views of many on the Democratic left. But the Democrats could run Bozo the Clown and I’d still vote against the Rs even if they accidentally ran someone like Romney.
I have a little bit of a problem with that framing, specifically, the “see both sides of an issue” part. It’s a framing very vulnerable to Overton Window movements. Most issues have far more than two sides.
For example, there’s minimum wage.
There’s plenty of room for debate there, and a “moderate” might recognize both sides.
But there are other positions:
3) Libertarians want to abolish minimum wage entirely.
4) My hardcore leftist friend wants to set it specific to a corporation, such that the minimum wage must be no less than 20% of the highest wage in the corporation. He also wants to require that certain jobs, just as banking and investment, may only be paid minimum wage.
5) Some monarchists want to bring back involuntary servitude.
6) Universal Basic Income complicates all of these arguments.
If I think the current minimum wage is far too low, and that it should be raised dramatically, and then indexed to local cost-of-living, does that make me non-moderate? Only if we confine ourselves to looking at the first two options. Compared to my hardcore friend, I’m moderate AF.
Lemme make sure my sig file shows.
And indeed their “both sides” framing is not so much borne out by the meat of the data. Maybe it would be fairer to state that they are a heterogenous group that look at issues through more than one lens. Of course, pretty much by definition, they are less ideologic.
No shock that the order of party ID among moderates goes D>I>>R but that most can minimally be swung to vote for specific Rs depending on the race and the candidate.
There is no question to me that centrists and moderates can only look at today’s power landscape and conclude that today’s GOP in power is an existential threat to moderate governance. At the same time the polarization of the landscape is without question. Grains of salts assumed, just run the Pew’s data animation to see it visualized.
There was a great op-ed in the Washington Post the other day about the false morality of the centrist position. It says it better than I could.
As a Canadian, your “hardcore progressive/socialists” are as threatening as warm milk.
The meaning of the word “socialism” is quite obviously changing (or has already changed) – none of the prominent “socialists” in the Democratic party (Bernie, AOC, etc.) are advocating for government control of most of the economy. We already have a hybrid economy, with some sectors dominated by the government but most in private hands. They’re arguing that this hybrid economy move a bit closer to the Canadian/Western European model, with universal health care and a few other shifts towards more government involvement.
There are no proponents of the Cuban or Venezuelan model in the Democratic party. There’s nothing to be afraid of, unless you find Canada scary.
These are more conservatives but I think overall you’re in the conservative wing of Democrats and are far far to the left of any Republican. Republican moderates have been hunted to extinction, you clearly aren’t one of those
As far as this list goes,
Tax reform/flat tax. This is way too conservative for my tastes, when there is so much income inequality it makes no sense to me to tax all at the same rate.
Healthcare for “illegal immigrants”. Except for life-stabilizing care at ERs, the undocumented currently don’t get healthcare. I think you’re worried about a “problem” that doesn’t exist.
The wall- I’m with you I think. Enhanced border security does not need a new wall, except where determined to be effective.
Affirmative action- I’ll be more on your page when racism is less a core part of the American culture.
Universal Basic Income- It’s something I would be willing to consider and perhaps try first at the state level.
Tariffs on some countries- the countries don’t pay the tariffs, American consumers do. I’m more a free trader.
Constitutional rights for terrorists- I’m afraid we’re poles apart. Every person on US soil has constitutional rights, no matter where they come from.
Travel bans from terrorists’ countries- not with you. I’m for vetting all international visitors to some degree.
Drone strikes- not comfortable with the thought that American lives are so special that we can wave away due process before killing others.
All in all, you’re a Democrat, in my opinion. I would probably disagree with you more than most but still I am much closer to your views than any Republican figure I can think of.
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.
In my humble opinion, giving a terrorist the same rights as a US citizen would arguably cripple attempts to fight terrorism. I do not think US taxpayers should pay for defense council but I also think “basic human rights” if followed would prevent torture and “hanging them” as you said.
Number 4 specifically is a near perfect example of why the ultra-progressive/socialist movement scares the HELL out of me. I realize the odds of this actually ever happening make my wish for a flat/consumer tax look optimistic but that their are people in our country that really believe a blue collar entry level worker should make only 20% less than the highly skilled and/or executives? :eek:
That is - to my way of thinking - every bit as crazy as about anything the right has thrown out.
You should well be scared, because I didn’t mention that my friend is the new Democratic senator from Wyoming, and sits on the Department of Labor oversight committee.
OF COURSE HE DOESN’T. He’s just some schmoe who used to run a gaming store and now I don’t even know what he does for work. He has like zero political power. That bit I posted? He posted that on Facebook specifically to contrast himself against progressives/liberals/neoliberals who hold actual political power, to show what a real hardcore leftist wants.
Being scared of people like my friend makes absolutely no sense. It’s like being frightened of a toothy deep-sea monster. Yeah, that deep-sea monster may be willing to feast on your flesh, but it’s never, ever, ever going to get the chance.
Well then that is concerning. I can’t find a proposal to do such a thing but I’m not looking that hard.
Forbesdid have an article where they point out that in 1950 typical CEOs made 20x the average salary of their workers.
In 2018 they made 361x the average salary of their workers where the average production worker earned ~$38,000
So a 1950’s ratio would have a CEO earning $760k instead of $13.7 Million.
I can understand how a legal framework imposing compensation ratios would be offensive.
Your math is wrong – he said 20% of, not less than, the highest salary. So if the janitor makes $15 an hour, the CEO doesn’t get to make any more than $75 an hour.
Can you enumerate any specific rights that a US citizen has but a terrorist should not?
I believe these would apply but IANAL
Everyone can agree that a terrorist is a vile human being who deserves whatever’s coming to him. The problem is, how do you determine who is a terrorist and who isn’t? The purpose of these rights is not to protect criminals, it’s to protect innocents who are accused of crimes.
For example. Let’s say the US army apprehends some Arab guy in Afghanistan. They suspect him of being a terrorist. Should they just hang him, right on the spot? What if he isn’t a terrorist, but a Chinese Ugyhur Muslim who came to Afghanistan to escape persecution by the Chinese regime, and is being handed over to US forces by his racist Afghan neighbors? This happened in the real world. To twenty two people, none of whom actually had anything against the United States (until they were held in captivity for years and years with no trial, that is).
Do they deserve the rights you mentioned? Even though they aren’t terrorists?