You said in US politics then bring up monarchy and say you’re going by original meanings instead of the absolutely obvious.
Like I said I knew it wasn’t sincere before I even explained. But I fell into the trap yet again.
2 Likes
I did ask for a definition in terms of U.S. politics. You used terms from 18th Century France to define “moderate.” Define “moderate” without using other meaningless terms.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/08/12/trump-is-a-left-wing-crank-on-economics/%3FoutputType=amp
Looks like we had a moderate. Obama was called a moderate. Bush was called a moderate. Biden is called a moderate.
1 Like
Interesting article. Which paragraphs were bothered you the most?
Like I said the question wasn’t sincere and knew that going in. Should have gone with my gut and ignored.
Try this then specifically: In United States politics, a moderate is considered someone occupying a centre position on the left–right political spectrum.
It was absolutely a sincere question. Can you define “moderate” in U.S. politics without using other meaningless(well, nebulous)terms(left and right wing fit here, unless we’re talking about 18th Century France)? If you can’t define the term, “moderate” would seem more just another (potential) political party than anything we can constantly say we need.
Does the existence of left” and “right” parties not lead to compromise and the adoption of “moderate” policies?
Edit: Saw your post after I posted. “A moderate is considered someone occupying any mainstream position”…I’m quite certain that no one getting elected is anything other than a “moderate.” Getting elected would seem as good a proof as any that one is mainstream.
2 Likes
Avoiding extreme views is one of the key parts. Which is why I brought up Kansas specifically and Sam Brownback. That was an example of letting an extremist into power. And the results were awful (opinion I realize) but widely shared. If you can’t call out extreme behavior from your own party I say that’s an issue. And that’s what I’m looking for in candidates whether Democratic or Republican.
I can’t remember where the article came from or a tweet but after Biden won the primary it said something along the lines of the this was the last candidate the far left wanted to see win. To me that’s a good sign of having at least some moderate in you.
It could absolutely. And I think it did and can at times. I believe that common ground should be looked for. But that’s not what we see. We see executive orders and reconciliation because nothing gets done unless all three branches are controlled. And then they can say well now we can get all our stuff done as we control it all.
The candidates that get shit on the most by their party for not being Democrat or Republican enough are the ones I’m talking about. I don’t want politicians whose sole goal is to say “I never voted with the other side” and wear it like a badge of honor.
1 Like
Not really and certainly not in the house. I mean you’ve got people like AOC and Marjorie Greene. I think both of them have plenty of views that are extreme.
Do they? Have you considered the possibility that our government is so moderate that people who are pretty dang moderate are considered extremists? 49.9 and 50.1 are extremists! 50 is the moderate position!
1 Like
One’s about as far left as it can get on most issues and the other is a Q anon person who said the parkland shooting was a false flag.
I get that you’re a burn it all down type, but acting as if all these people have basically the same views? No way.
After we just had an attempted coup? And even after that we STILL had politicians some who had to be protected at the capitol take the side of someone demanding to remain President after he lost an election. Holding the mighty sword of no evidence.
Many Republicans were able to say that’s madness come on.
We need the latter camp not the former IMO.
2 Likes
Maybe, but I doubt it(I’m not saying she wouldn’t go there if it were necessary for her to retain power).
Neither of these is a political issue.
Way. For the vast majority.
I, too, have heard and read that word. What government power did anyone attempt to seize?
What does this have to with right/left/moderate, to the extent it’s true? Trump was about as moderate as a President can be. If you see two identical twins playing one-on-one and trying to win, do you say, “Man, those kids are so different!”?
I was just thinking the same numbers or thereabouts. The first Senate term is often used figuring things out, so I’d say more than 2 terms is needed to keep expertise in.
I’d say 3-4 Senate terms. 24 years is plenty on the top end. Since most senators don’t get their first term til their 30s or even 40s, 24 years would out them about the same ages as private sector retirement age. I think that’s fair.
So maybe 10-12 for House.
Agree for sure.
I agree that it doesn’t fix the problem of a lazy electorate. But it could limit some of the downside maybe. I don’t agree that this will remain a problem as long as public schools have what you call a stranglehold on education. I think it is cultural and that goes beyond simply public schools. Many private schools have their own issues.
The inevitable mention of race 
. They didn’t go overboard and there was some context but it was irritation to me.
I think that the understanding of the swamp goes well beyond Congress. Term limits or not, congress still goes up for election every 2-6 years. The real swamp is the bureaucracy that keeps Washington much the same regardless of who wins the election.
And to a certain extent, that is desirable and needed. Many parts of government require significant expertise and experience to continue to operate at a functional level. We don’t want our military leadership to be completely replaced every two years based on who won the last election. We need someone to keep track of what is going on in Uzbekibekibekistanstanstan. We can’t be retraining new tax fraud investigators or FBI agents every other month.
But the problem that arises is eventually too many of the actual policy decisions are made by an unelected swamp. And we will have lost our country.
1 Like
Of course it is. You have people elected to national office with insane ideas like that. That’s definitely a political issue. If what people believe isn’t a political issue then nothing is. If that’s not extremism then nothing can be. That’s like saying you’re going to put 8 alligators on a ship to steer it and say don’t worry it’s not a nautical issue. The boats fine. I’m saying we need less crazy people as leaders is all. And who we decide to pick as political leaders is absolutely an issue.
The Presidency.
That’s what you keep telling me. And that’s why I said it’s fruitless you see them all the same because if you had your way none of it would exist. I’ll say this matters you’ll say no it doesn’t and we’ll both go to sleep feeling the same way.
2 Likes
Been a long time since I’ve kept up with what they are doing. I hope they don’t have nukes. We should be the only one with those!
And this way of thinking is the problem.
Wha…how so? When?
Because it’s true. I bet I could go back through posts and find you saying the same(calling Trump a liberal, leftist, or similar).
1 Like
You would think that but just like abortion, everything is political nowadays.
1 Like
I understand that sentiment. There was a lot of interesting insight into their backgrounds and tendencies. The takeaway for me is that Mitch will end up being more practical in whatever negotiations play out and even in a weakened position he’ll still manage this pretty well for the party. I thought this poll was interesting and highlights the splits within each party.
Although with polling these days, who knows…
1 Like
5500 page stimulus bills that have a vote a few hours later already point to this.
1 Like
I think some of that is true. You followed up by mentioning my biggest rebuttal to that argument, which is: govt needs to function continuously regardless of what party is leading, so a functional bureaucracy is essential.
I do think that the bureaucrats are less swampy from a corruption standpoint than career politicians, but politics is everywhere in DC.
One of my biggest issues is the “czar” era. Appointment of so called czars essentially allows agencies to expand into whatever they want without congressional oversight, and that goes beyond a functional bureaucracy to having policy decisions made by bureaucrats, as you said.
I think so too, I thought it was a very well done article. I think that Mitch will end up managing ok but I am concerned about the filibuster fight looming. I do not think the verbal agreement of 2 democrats constitutes a platform secure enough to move on. The filibuster exists for a reason and is extremely important, and killing it would fundamentally change the Senate in a negative way.
For those who didn’t follow, the power sharing deal that Schumer and McConnell were hashing out this week hinged in part on protections against removing the filibuster rule, which Schumer wants to get rid of and Mitch wants to keep. The deal eventually went through after Mitch was reassured by a couple Democrats that they opposed removing the filibuster, which would allow him to tell his party that they had enough votes (if needed) to stop democrats from gutting that law. But verbal pronouncement is far different from written agreement.
That fight will occur sometime in the next 4 years, guaranteed.
Get rid of direct election for senators.
Repeal the 17th and make introduce collective punishment for lobby groups that behave badly, and ban them from being inside the greater DC area.
As for term limits? Who cares? Elect them once for 10 years or draw them by jury lot, the result could hardly be worse.
1 Like