Power to Centrists, Moderates and Common Sense Politics

In this circus of extreme partisanship and political propaganda the voice of the Moderate, the Centrist, the Rational often goes unheard and unsupported. Indeed most of the Moderate threads I make dont even get past page one. Do you support extremism or do you support sanity? From a common sense Moderate view, running society is pretty simple...

Tax

Left: Tax-cuts for the poor!
Right: Tax-cuts for the rich!
Common Sense: Flat Tax for all

Abortion

Left: Yes to choice
Right: Yes to Life
Common Sense: We want to limit abortion as much as possible but there must be some exceptions.

Immigration
Left: Let em all in
Right: Let none of em in
Common Sense: Let some of em in

Terrorism

Left: Be nice to the freedom fighters!
Right: Kill em all those scum!
Common Sense: Try diplomacy first. If that doesnt work, kick ass.

Healthcare

Left: Socialized Healthcare
Right: No socialized Healthcare
Common Sense: Anything can be a cure or poison, depending on dose.
We can afford a little bit of this.

Guns

Left: Get rid of them!
Right: Keep them!
Common Sense: Keep them but add I.D./Fingerprints with purchase

Environment

Left: The poor Fragile Earth above all else!
Right: Drill baby, Drill!
Common Sense: Humans first but lets also try to protect our precious earth whenever possible

Government

Left: Big Goverment
Right: Small Government
Common-Sense: Medium Sized Government

Economy

Left: Help the poor!
Right: Help Corporations - they produce our wealth!
Common Sense: Help the middle class

Energy

Left: Get Alternatives to Oil and Nuclear Power!
Right: Get Oil and Nuclear Power!
Common Sense: Get Oil, Nuclear Power AND alternatives to them
to become less dependent on one or two.

Civil Rights

Left: More rights for minorities!
Right: Minorities musnt impose on the majority!
Common Sense: Civil Rights for All

There's a whole lot more but you get the picture. Do these left/right positions sound simplistic or stereotype to you? Well, I didnt invent them. Read this Forum and you`ll find these anti-common-sense positions all over the place. Extremism is not good for this country. Radicalism is what is bringing the country down. The tone between the parties needs to be more civil. The moderates of both parties need to regain power and momentum.

Are there ANY moderate minded people out there at all...

Centrists are often ridiculed as boring, spineless or without principle. But they are the ones keeping things together. Reality can be somewhat unexciting. But Id guess that the centrist views posted in the opening posts are views most people could actually agree on if they drop partisan bias for just a second and think how they would rule things if they were in charge.

Left and Right politics don't mean too much anymore. Moderate mean even less.

Originally posted by satron
Left and Right politics don't mean too much anymore. Moderate mean even less.

Unfortunately they mean a lot to Billions of other people who stoically defend their left/right positions.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Hi there. I just wanted to chime in to add some support for your thread. I personally fall within the social libertarian profile. It sounds like an oxymoron but it really is not. I think moderates are a lot like me. Both left and right have very little differences, both seek to destroy freedoms of various degrees. There is a center view that is more rational. Where both parties disagree maybe they should look for their commonality.

While that is simplistic and stereotypical I get your point. In a 2 party system the Centrists, which I call myself, are the deciding factor. The thinkers that aren't married to any given ideology. Let yourself deal with any given issue on YOUR personal beliefs. Not be told, sold, to anothers.

Originally posted by Skyfloating


Tax

Left: Tax-cuts for the poor!
Right: Tax-cuts for the rich!
Common Sense: Flat Tax for all

Income taxes force you to participate in the system. They are even worse when coupled with property taxes. The Fair Tax is better.

Abortion

Left: Yes to choice
Right: Yes to Life
Common Sense: We want to limit abortion as much as possible but there must be some exceptions.

Ok, so in your opinion when is it acceptable to murder innocents?

Immigration
Left: Let em all in
Right: Let none of em in
Common Sense: Let some of em in

Which ones? What do we do with the teeming mass of illegals here already?

Terrorism

Left: Be nice to the freedom fighters!
Right: Kill em all those scum!
Common Sense: Try diplomacy first. If that doesn't work, kick ass.

I can agree with this. However, unless we have a legitimate national security interest in the place in question, it is better to stay out of it imo.

Healthcare

Left: Socialized Healthcare
Right: No socialized Healthcare
Common Sense: Anything can be a cure or poison, depending on dose.
We can afford a little bit of this.

Socialism is a poison to the soul. How much poison do you want in your soul? IMO, a better answer would be to make medicine less of a "business". All the money is in "treatment", not in cures. I don't have the answer, but socialism just cannot be it.

Guns

Left: Get rid of them!
Right: Keep them!
Common Sense: Keep them but add I.D./Fingerprints with purchase

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED. To me this means that the government has absolutely no business interfering in gun ownership in any way, shape, or form. The purpose of gun ownership is not sportsmanship, it is not just self defense, it is to keep the government in check. It is one of the people's checks against tyrannical governance. Allowing the government to influence or control gun ownership is a conflict of interest.

Environment

Left: The poor Fragile Earth above all else!
Right: Drill baby, Drill!
Common Sense: Humans first but lets also try to protect our precious earth whenever possible

Depending an where and how this line is drawn, I could support this position.

Government

Left: Big Goverment
Right: Small Government
Common-Sense: Medium Sized Government

What is the function of "government"? The federal government's powers were enumerated in the Constitution. The problem is the relentless power grab by the federal government moving into areas where it has no Constitutional mandate.

Economy

Left: Help the poor!
Right: Help Corporations - they produce our wealth!
Common Sense: Help the middle class

No. Government should stay out of the market entirely. It should not set wages or prices. States can have laws concerning worker safety, but not the feds.

Energy

Left: Get Alternatives to Oil and Nuclear Power!
Right: Get Oil and Nuclear Power!
Common Sense: Get Oil, Nuclear Power AND alternatives to them
to become less dependent on one or two.

Absolutely. However, no governmental favoritism or subsidizing of any type. Allow free market competition.

Civil Rights

Left: More rights for minorities!
Right: Minorities musnt impose on the majority!
Common Sense: Civil Rights for All

I would ask for clarification of your position here. In theory, your "common sense" position is the right one, but define exactly what you mean.

if you vote for moderate politicians, you will have a moderate government. the media (and this includes blogs), can not "sell" moderate. moderate does not make them ad dollars, the absurd, and off-kilter generate ad dollars.

let's see if we as a nation can demand something other than "stupid". let's see if we can demand from our local school boards a mandatory class in crictical-thinking. let's see if america can go 5 years without being at war in another country. let's see if america would demand that corporations pay in taxes what they would save in wages by shipping jobs off to other countries. let's see the constitution and the bill of rights work for the bottom 90%, and not just for the top 10%.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Common sense moderate politics is dead in the water as long as OReilly, Medved, Rush, Savage, Beck, Levin, Hannity, Boortz, Hewitt and Auther fan the flames of right wing extremism. They have millions of fans that hang on every word as gospel. Even some of your fellow Mods seem to be not just fans but outright devotees. When the voices of moderation and common sense are banned; what are we to think?

I can pretty much see the future America thru my lens of futurist academic training. It's ugly! I'm so thankful I don't have children!!

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
Ok, so in your opinion when is it acceptable to murder innocents?

This is the radical rhetoric Im actually bemoaning with this post. Nobody likes an abortion. Imagine this scenario:
A woman gets raped. Within a week of pregnancy she gets an abortion. You call her a "murderer of innocents"?

Imagine a leftist calling you a "murderer of innocents" for defending your homeland against terrorists. Same kind of ill-willed rhetoric.

Which ones? What do we do with the teeming mass of illegals here already?

Let the legals stay, says the centrist.

Socialism is a poison to the soul. How much poison do you want in your soul? IMO, a better answer would be to make medicine less of a "business". All the money is in "treatment", not in cures. I don't have the answer, but socialism just cannot be it.

Medicine in small doses has a healing effect, in high doses a poisoning effect. From the Soviet Union and many other countries you can see that too much Socialism is devastating. But from Western Europe you can see that just a little bit of it is not that bad.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED. To me this means that the government has absolutely no business interfering in gun ownership in any way, shape, or form. The purpose of gun ownership is not sportsmanship, it is not just self defense, it is to keep the government in check. It is one of the people's checks against tyrannical governance. Allowing the government to influence or control gun ownership is a conflict of interest.

Nowhere did I claim I want gun ownership infringed upon.

What is the function of "government"?

Management of the stuff we all agree can be managed centrally. Personally, Id prefer more local Government though.

]No. Government should stay out of the market entirely. It should not set wages or prices. States can have laws concerning worker safety, but not the feds.

I can appreciate that view, although I dont think its realistic at this point.

I would ask for clarification of your position here. In theory, your "common sense" position is the right one, but define exactly what you mean.

No to Affirmative Action for example, which infringes on the rights of non-minorities. True equality.

Thanks for representing one of the sides.

Originally posted by whaaa
Common sense moderate politics is dead in the water as long as OReilly,

Oreilly is a moderate. Ive heard him voice his belief in global warming, gun control, pro-choice among other things. You must be wearing leftist glasses to see no Moderate Republicans.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by whaaa
Common sense moderate politics is dead in the water as long as OReilly,

Oreilly is a moderate. Ive heard him voice his belief in global warming, gun control, pro-choice among other things. You must be wearing leftist glasses to see no Moderate Republicans.

Of course I see a few moderate Republicans; I'm one of em, but they are few and far between. Who gets all the attention?

Oreilly is a sexist pig!

thinkprogress.org...

Originally posted by jimmyx
if you vote for moderate politicians, you will have a moderate government. the media (and this includes blogs), can not "sell" moderate. moderate does not make them ad dollars, the absurd, and off-kilter generate ad dollars.

Ive learned this in that any centrist thread I post never makes it past the first page (this one might actually make it past the first). Being down to earth is not exicting to people. Being aggressive, radical and sensationalistic...thats what sells.

But does it help the country? I doubt it.

Originally posted by whaaa


Of course I see a few moderate Republicans; I'm one of em,

Judging from your posting History which mostly slams Republicans, I doubt you are one. I may be mistaken, so apologies if I am.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

This is the radical rhetoric Im actually bemoaning with this post. Nobody likes an abortion. Imagine this scenario:
A woman gets raped. Within a week of pregnancy she gets an abortion. You call her a "murderer of innocents"?

If abortion were confined strictly to this and the woman helped prosecute the rapist(you know to show that it really was rape), I would likely have much less of a problem with it. I suspect that the vast majority of abortions are strictly "convenience killings" though.

Let the legals stay, says the centrist.

And the illegals? What do we do with them?

Medicine in small doses has a healing effect, in high doses a poisoning effect. From the Soviet Union and many other countries you can see that too much Socialism is devastating. But from Western Europe you can see that just a little bit of it is not that bad.

Sorry, but the government forcing me to do anything like that is tyranny. Forcing me to pay for others who WILL NOT pay for themselves is wrong(please note the words emphasized, I did not say can not). Additionally, forcing doctors to participate is tantamount to indentured servitude if not slavery imo. Doctors have only 24 hours each day and should be able to spend that time doing what is best for them.

Nowhere did I claim I want gun ownership infringed upon.

You did. What do you call the finger print and id? That is a problem because then the government knows who has weapons and what weapons they have. This is inimical to the reason for the second amendment imo. The second amendment is there in case we need to overthrow the government. Thus disclosing who has what weapons is a serious problem. It permits gun owners to be targeted prior to the revolution.

Management of the stuff we all agree can be managed centrally. Personally, Id prefer more local Government though.

Therein lies another problem. I do not think health and education(among other things) should be centrally managed from Washington.

I can appreciate that view, although I dont think its realistic at this point.

That is one of the reasons we need a reset.

No to Affirmative Action for example, which infringes on the rights of non-minorities. True equality.

I can appreciate that view, although I dont think its realistic at this point.

Thanks for representing one of the sides.

The only side I claim to represent is that of Liberty.

Originally posted by intrepid
While that is simplistic and stereotypical I get your point. In a 2 party system the Centrists, which I call myself, are the deciding factor. The thinkers that aren't married to any given ideology. Let yourself deal with any given issue on YOUR personal beliefs. Not be told, sold, to anothers.

Viewing from an ideology is like viewing through distortion-glasses. Good to know there are others out there.

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
]If abortion were confined strictly to this and the woman helped prosecute the rapist(you know to show that it really was rape), I would likely have much less of a problem with it.

There you go. Some goodwill shining through.

And the illegals? What do we do with them?

Send most of them back. Let the ones with good conduct stay.

Sorry, but the government forcing me to do anything like that is tyranny. Forcing me to pay for others who WILL NOT pay for themselves is wrong(please note the words emphasized, I did not say can not). Additionally, forcing doctors to participate is tantamount to indentured servitude if not slavery imo. Doctors have only 24 hours each day and should be able to spend that time doing what is best for them.

Some of us have the attitude: "Alright, we can afford some of this. We're strong enough to be able to afford some of it".

Im not too happy with the idea personally, but I can see how there are segments of society that think they need this.

You did. What do you call the finger print and id? That is a problem because then the government knows who has weapons and what weapons they have. This is inimical to the reason for the second amendment imo. The second amendment is there in case we need to overthrow the government. Thus disclosing who has what weapons is a serious problem. It permits gun owners to be targeted prior to the revolution.

I see. Point taken.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by whaaa


Of course I see a few moderate Republicans; I'm one of em,

Judging from your posting History which mostly slams Republicans, I doubt you are one. I may be mistaken, so apologies if I am.

You are mistaken! I don't expect any apologies from you for me telling the truth as I see it. I see the GOP increasingly favoring corporatism and the elite. That's not conservationism and that's not the GOP I joined many years ago. The GOP has followed the neocons and the PNAC and in my opinion that's treason to draw the American people into wars based on lies; for the profit of favored contractors. Is it any wonder I criticize the Republicans?

Originally posted by whaaa
You are mistaken! I don't expect any apologies from you for me telling the truth as I see it. I see the GOP increasingly favoring corporatism and the elite. That's not conservationism and that's not the GOP I joined many years ago. The GOP has followed the neocons and the PNAC and in my opinion that's treason.

Define: Corporatism

Define: Neoconservativism.

If you have the time.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
]If abortion were confined strictly to this and the woman helped prosecute the rapist(you know to show that it really was rape), I would likely have much less of a problem with it.

There you go. Some goodwill shining through.

Please when you quote me, do not leave out important parts of the entire statement. Thanks.

If abortion were confined strictly to this and the woman helped prosecute the rapist(you know to show that it really was rape), I would likely have much less of a problem with it. I suspect that the vast majority of abortions are strictly "convenience killings" though.