U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-19-2019, 09:53 AM
 
Location: San Jose
2,179 posts, read 658,877 times
Reputation: 2327

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Delahanty View Post
LOL I knew it.

Like the OP, liberals always think they're "moderate."
Just because somebody is to the left of you politically doesn't make them a liberal. As a full fledged socialist most liberals are to the right of me. Yet I don't think of them as conservatives.

BTW being moderate isn't necessarily a good thing, think Argumentum ad Temperantiam. Think of the issue of slavery back in the 19th century and the two strong positions on it. You had the pro slavery crowd on one side and the anti slavery and pro emancipation crowd on the other. Would you consider the moderate stance on that issue to be moral sound? Probably not. Since it would still involve a form of slavery. Hence there are many times people need to take a radical stance and not appease the center position.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-19-2019, 11:04 AM
 
Location: Seattle
860 posts, read 193,690 times
Reputation: 947
Quote:
Originally Posted by texan2yankee View Post
Moderates vote for divided government, which is what America has as governance in Washington most of the time.
Correct. Having only a two-party system, moderates have no other option. As a moderate, I often have to be satisfied by keeping the ruling party in check and hoping the two sides can negotiate compromises. If I see a candidate that can work with the other side, I am more likely to vote for that individual.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2019, 11:36 AM
 
Location: New Mexico
6,671 posts, read 3,714,126 times
Reputation: 12559
Funny that many of the left and independent complaints about Hillary were that she was just yesterday's news. Same old - same old -- warmed-over Obama. Nothing new here... Trumpers were ridiculous in their manipulated opposition but not because she was too extreme.

There are moderates in each party that OP could support but they are quiet or shouted down as the media all focus on the gee-whiz story of the extremes. I'm not sure that the moderates offer what we need -- they still support foreign military engagement and old solutions. But, some folks favor the devil you know rather than the devil you don't know. That is how sad politics has become in this country -- we only vote against something. The extreme right generally wants only to dismantle the regulatory and social safety net and spend borrowed money so the rich get a free ride. The extreme left generally wants to bring the country into the 21st century, correct some healthcare and education cost problems and have a pay-as-you-go approach. (Everything else is fluff and rhetoric on both sides.) Those two positions are quite different. Usually, the parties are tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum. In this climate, the moderates are lost and have little to offer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2019, 01:08 PM
 
933 posts, read 199,549 times
Reputation: 1456
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunGrins View Post
Funny that many of the left and independent complaints about Hillary were that she was just yesterday's news. Same old - same old -- warmed-over Obama. Nothing new here... Trumpers were ridiculous in their manipulated opposition but not because she was too extreme.

There are moderates in each party that OP could support but they are quiet or shouted down as the media all focus on the gee-whiz story of the extremes. I'm not sure that the moderates offer what we need -- they still support foreign military engagement and old solutions. But, some folks favor the devil you know rather than the devil you don't know. That is how sad politics has become in this country -- we only vote against something. The extreme right generally wants only to dismantle the regulatory and social safety net and spend borrowed money so the rich get a free ride. The extreme left generally wants to bring the country into the 21st century, correct some healthcare and education cost problems and have a pay-as-you-go approach. (Everything else is fluff and rhetoric on both sides.) Those two positions are quite different. Usually, the parties are tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum. In this climate, the moderates are lost and have little to offer.
The extreme left is handing out reparations, free money to buy a home, free college, open borders, etc. Why did you forget all those items that come from the Dem candidates ?

There is no pay-as-you-go with their proposals. Medicare for all will shoot up to $56 trillion after that $30 trillion startup.

There's not enough rich people in the US to pay for all that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2019, 04:43 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
23,400 posts, read 11,592,140 times
Reputation: 4338
Quote:
Originally Posted by katharsis View Post
My point -- and I am going to say this just one more time -- is that many people (and NOT just people here illegally) often don't pay their fair share of taxes. Also, if employers pay "under the table", they do certainly do not report it -- unless I am very much mistaken about that! Wouldn't they get in trouble for that if they did.
I got your point, but your examples dont back it up.

Paying someone under the table is in and of itself illegal.


Quote:
Taking a very simple example, when I babysat years ago and received 50 cents an hour, "Mrs. Smith" did not take taxes out of the $3.00 or so she gave me, and neither of us claimed it on any tax form. If you apply that to anyone employing unskilled labor and who pays them "under the table", there are two people who benefit -- the employers and those they employ. If people are not paying their fair share in taxes, they are, in my opinion, getting something for much less than they should.
No, unless you are paying someone 12,500+ a year under the table, then you are actually saving the government money.

Quote:
In other words, what I am saying, is that many employers do NOT claim the "right number of employees."
thats fine, but the company is to blame there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2019, 05:29 PM
 
Location: New Jersey
1,200 posts, read 468,474 times
Reputation: 1151
Quote:
Originally Posted by texan2yankee View Post
Moderates vote for divided government, which is what America has as governance in Washington most of the time.
Conservatives and Liberals are the same thing, grounded in their extreme views.

Moderates know with 7 billion people on the planet we need to compromise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2019, 09:08 AM
 
6,735 posts, read 3,787,331 times
Reputation: 13877
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno View Post
Just because somebody is to the left of you politically doesn't make them a liberal. As a full fledged socialist most liberals are to the right of me. Yet I don't think of them as conservatives.

BTW being moderate isn't necessarily a good thing, think Argumentum ad Temperantiam. Think of the issue of slavery back in the 19th century and the two strong positions on it. You had the pro slavery crowd on one side and the anti slavery and pro emancipation crowd on the other. Would you consider the moderate stance on that issue to be moral sound? Probably not. Since it would still involve a form of slavery. Hence there are many times people need to take a radical stance and not appease the center position.
I would disagree on the "moderate" stance on issues of human rights and cruelty. There is no spectrum on such things. A person either believes in slavery or does not. I don't think a moderate on either side of the center line would have a "sometimes it's okay" or "sometimes it's not okay" stance.

Moderate simply means not an extremist position on many issues. But as I say, there are some issues that clearly fall within basic human rights or universal humanity, no matter someone's political stance. In other words, some things are not political to most humans. In fact, it would be only the extremes, IMO, who would seek out an excuse not to follow the universal humanity of some things.

I think many people don't understand the spectrum of political stances (judging from some responses). There is a center line (centrist), and a full spectrum to the right of that line (from moderate right to far right), and a full spectrum to the left of that line (from moderate left to far left). I am moderate left. This means that I and a moderate rightee actually agree on some issues, but naturally disagree on others. Just like I disagree on some issues with the far left, and disagree on almost all issues from those on the far right.

Some people are to the right of the center line on fiscal issues, but are to the left of the center line on social issues.

I think most people are in the moderate range (from left to right). Activists are in the extreme ranges.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2019, 09:20 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
5,703 posts, read 4,245,503 times
Reputation: 4668
I think there are way more moderates than their are hard leftist and hard rightist. If that were not the case, we wouldn't see the power pendulum swing as often as we do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2019, 11:58 AM
 
Location: San Jose
2,179 posts, read 658,877 times
Reputation: 2327
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpollen View Post
I would disagree on the "moderate" stance on issues of human rights and cruelty. There is no spectrum on such things. A person either believes in slavery or does not. I don't think a moderate on either side of the center line would have a "sometimes it's okay" or "sometimes it's not okay" stance.
I used slavery as an example to highlight the fallacy of Argument to moderation. On certain issues, picking the middle of the road option is not morally sound or even reasonable. Concerning slavery , there was many people before the Civil War that took a moderate position on slavery. They may not have liked it but felt that it was a economic necessity or strove for middle ground like the 3/5ths Compromise. Looking back in hindsight, it was the radicals on the topic of slavery that ended up being on the right side of history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2019, 05:09 PM
 
6,735 posts, read 3,787,331 times
Reputation: 13877
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno View Post
I used slavery as an example to highlight the fallacy of Argument to moderation. On certain issues, picking the middle of the road option is not morally sound or even reasonable. Concerning slavery , there was many people before the Civil War that took a moderate position on slavery. They may not have liked it but felt that it was a economic necessity or strove for middle ground like the 3/5ths Compromise. Looking back in hindsight, it was the radicals on the topic of slavery that ended up being on the right side of history.
As for slavery (and I don't want to turn this thread into one on slavery), just because some people may have had a "I don't like it, but okay, I'll go with it, since it's good for those owners," doesn't mean they were moderate at all.

Being a moderate does not mean looking for a way to excuse cruel behavior to humans. I suspect someone who was against slavery personally, but accepted it as okay for others, was definitely on the right, but may not as extreme right as some others.

But I'd have to read up on that issue, to see if that's the case.

A more recent example might be the children in cages. I think that most moderates would agree that, despite Trumpers claiming it's necessary, most if not all moderates and far lefters would agree that it's cruel, inhumane, and immoral, no matter the excuse. Because there can always be an excuse, can't there?

I understand the large influx of immigrants since Trump took office, and I understand their plan to use children in cages as a deterrent, but those things in no way excuse the treatment of children that way. I think that most Americans feel this way...including moderate Republicans. All except one group, and we know who they are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top