Today's congressional republicans seem to be beholden to one individual rather than to the good of the American people. I miss those days when we did have moderates in Congress, but they have been systematically replaced. An example is Senator Lugar from Indiana who was defeated in the Republican primary 2012 by a candidate who could't hold a candle to Lugar's accomplishments. Forcing candidates to sign a promise to vote a certain way if elected is not the American way and is not good for the country. This has led to a very right-wing Congress which is the cause of governmental gridlock. By the way, although I vote democrat now, one of my favorite presidents was President Eisenhower--a moderate republican.
We need some moderate republicans in Congress.
- Thread starter Leafhen1
- Start date
The fact is that both parties normally vote along party lines according to this article"House Republicans in 2013 voted with their caucus an average of 92 percent of the time, breaking the previous record of 91 percent in 2011, according to a new study from CQ Roll Call. The House GOP voted unanimously on party-unity votes—those that divided parties—35 percent of the time, also inching past the previous record of 34 percent in 2010.
A look at the Senate offers a similar picture, but in reverse; Senate Democrats broke their previous record on party unity in 2013 when lawmakers voted an average of 94 percent with their caucus. Unanimous voting also reached a new high: the Democratic caucus voted unanimously 52 percent on party-unity votes, which shatters the record for either party in either chamber (the last high was 46 percent in 2011)."
So each, in their own fashion, are lemmings and I just don't see how anyone can think that a good situation for our country.
I don't either..Both parties put the party above everything.
Last edited:
Seriously, You blame only the republicans? Have you watched Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and President Obama's partisanship? They and the republicans are at fault. Until we get a real leader as President and at least one in the Senate and House nothing will change.
So the president that led the most corrupt administration in our history. More people indicted and convicted than all previous administrations combined.
The one that tripled our debt. Who cut taxes too much and then turned around and gave us one of the largest tax hikes in history. Oh and he cut taxes while increasing spending...
The one that looked the other way while his administrative folks did a black bag ops from the WH.
The one that was the first president to give China our missile technology.
Ronal Reagan performance lie, the black bag ops, all the other stuff is why I left the republican party while he was president. The party left it's values behind and became the brain dead party of lemmings since Reagan. That party, my former party, is a ****ing embarrassment.
The one that tripled our debt. Who cut taxes too much and then turned around and gave us one of the largest tax hikes in history. Oh and he cut taxes while increasing spending...
The one that looked the other way while his administrative folks did a black bag ops from the WH.
The one that was the first president to give China our missile technology.
Ronal Reagan performance lie, the black bag ops, all the other stuff is why I left the republican party while he was president. The party left it's values behind and became the brain dead party of lemmings since Reagan. That party, my former party, is a ****ing embarrassment.
Last edited:
My definition of a Moderate (not party specific). A spineless candidate with no moral compass who believes in being politically correct rather than speaking the truth and doing what is right for America. A Moderate has no vision for the future or plan of attack to solve the problems this great Country is facing. He enjoys floating in an inner tube and letting the wind control his "direction" and "ups and downs".
Can't agree.... I think that a moderate is one that is willing to negotiate and come to some kind of agreement. Otherwise nothing ever gets done.
That's a very broad swipe dave. You just can't make a blanket statement like that that is actually valid for all.
There are certainly times when you stick to your guns in progressing ideas through a process. There are far more times when a compromise is necessary, and given multiple parties that will just about always be the case. Ethics or some principle worth fighting for being involved would be things to not compromise on.
There are certainly times when you stick to your guns in progressing ideas through a process. There are far more times when a compromise is necessary, and given multiple parties that will just about always be the case. Ethics or some principle worth fighting for being involved would be things to not compromise on.
And your definition, in my opinion, is exactly what's wrong with this country. In actuality, there could be one party, the moderates, pulled from both Democrat and Republican side. They would dominate in elections and do what the majority of the country ( at least in polls) are in favor of. They would compromise and work together, and possibly accomplish things.
So dave, what happens when you don't compromise, nothing happens, things get worse and have a more serious problem? Or what happens when you do compromise, things get better and have a less serious problem?
Have you ever negotiated anything in your life? Even Trump negotiates and compromises on all of his deals.
Your definition of moderate is laughable - what you've defined is an opportunist, not a moderate.
Have you ever negotiated anything in your life? Even Trump negotiates and compromises on all of his deals.
Your definition of moderate is laughable - what you've defined is an opportunist, not a moderate.
Most ideas are put forth knowing that they'll change somewhat as different people/groups have different expectations.
We've done it since we first started bartering for goods, services and relationships.
We've done it since we first started bartering for goods, services and relationships.
See, here's another problem with trying to box moderates in - I don't think moderates necessarily do what the majority (and especially as defined by "polls") are in favor of. Rather they do what's right and get there by negotiation and compromise without sacrificing their core principles.
dave, that's just not true. Once again look up the definitions of an opportunist and a moderate. They are two very different schools of thought. You can negotiate and compromise without sacrificing principles. It does require the ability to understand what that means, which means you have to be educated and understand options. You probably need to broaden your horizons on where you get your information from.
I noticed you didn't answer my questions either.
tell you what davegolf, explain to us how not compromising has helped the republicans take the White House the last 2 cycles. Or their popularity with the whole of the electorate since the only people they excite, in a positive manner, are their hardcore followers.
Last edited:
They have compromised and/or given up at every turn. By compromising they have lost support. Obama is an aberration and he was not going to be beat by anyone.
Oh really, that's the lie you tell yourself.
They are who they are due to big money and business. They are well paid, uncompromising slaves for corporate causes. They left principles and all that behind with Reagan and that huge ass myth.
Tell us how the uncompromising tea party has helped the right.
They are who they are due to big money and business. They are well paid, uncompromising slaves for corporate causes. They left principles and all that behind with Reagan and that huge ass myth.
Tell us how the uncompromising tea party has helped the right.
My kind of moderate has principles, visions, and morality, but understands that others on the political spectrum also have values which don't exactly coincide with his. Furthermore by finding solutions through compromise with others, the results are often better than not compromising and thus allowing problems to grow worse.
Finally when through trial and error it is discovered these compromises don't work, the solutions are refined. Consequently through the shifting and winnowing of compromises workable solutions develop over time.
If we all thought we had a monopoly on truth, vision, and morality then compromise and progress would never occur.
Finally when through trial and error it is discovered these compromises don't work, the solutions are refined. Consequently through the shifting and winnowing of compromises workable solutions develop over time.
If we all thought we had a monopoly on truth, vision, and morality then compromise and progress would never occur.
A wise old Democrat Judge (now deceased) once told me that when you compromise with the devil you engage in devil's work. Didn't totally comprehend at the time but 40 years later it has become clearer. He was a "moderate" democrat by definition and thought ill of the liberals on how children were being raised, taught and disciplined. He was one of IUs biggest Athletic Supporters (loved Mallory) and actually wrote a newsletter to fans long before the Internet.
That is just not true. However, there are things and points that I would never concede on and I think that is true with all people. For example, I think abortion is wrong and I would in no way ever vote to support it in any way (and please don't make this into an abortion thread....it was just the first example I thought of) and I know there are others on the other side of the issue that feel the same way. However, there are lots of areas where you can negotiate and still have principles.
Last edited:
Since when does being a moderate have anything to do with being willing to compromise on issues?
Utter nonsense.
Utter nonsense.
Being a moderate is not synonymous with being willing to compromise. Good grief. That kind of belief is exactly what the f&%k is wrong with politics in this country! It's why the Republican party has a boatload of flaming a$$ho%$ running for President (along with a couple of more reasonable ones), and all of them losing to a lunatic billionaire who just might win the nomination.
And don't get me started on the Democrats running for President.
And don't get me started on the Democrats running for President.
Moderates seem to be despised by those on the far right and far left. I am a moderate, and I have principles. I also have personal values that I deeply believe in. However, I am willing to think through another person's opinion. God didn't make us all alike. My far right friend says that middle of the roaders make good road kill. However, I am a "middle of the roader", and I just can't understand the contempt my friend has for my political views.
That's because holding rigid far right or far left views simplifies your life. For starters, you no longer have to think for yourself or even listen to the view of someone you disagree with. It's politics for lazy people.
Okay, then here's a test for you:
Ginger or Mary Ann; Coke or Pepsi; Skyline or Gold Star; Graeter's or Aglemesis? (If you say "both" expect a call or e-mail from some Ashley Madison folks ....)
Mary Ann, Pepsi, Gold Star, and I refuse to answer the last one for business reasons. Or, will you accept "both"? In support of my proposed answer of "both," I have it on very good authority that a Graeter and an Aglamesis briefly dated during high school.
But I'm not quite sure what point you were trying to make.
That is so true and so many people fall for it. They have no idea of what the Republicans' or Democrats' view is on a subject but they know they support the Republicans' or the Democrats' view...depending on whether they are a Republican or a Democrat.
By far the worst example is when a politician switches parties and suddenly, overnight, supports everything from his new party and opposes everything put forward by his old party. I can't remember the last example of this in Congress, but it was beyond ridiculous listening to the guy flip on every last issue overnight.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the majority of Americans agree on most things in principal. Those are the moderates. They don't choose or adjust their belief according to the polls, that's what they truly believe.
The compromise goes from their principals to the final agreement. They absolutely have principles and they still negotiate.
Mary Ann, Pepsi, Gold Star, and I refuse to answer the last one for business reasons. Or, will you accept "both"? In support of my proposed answer of "both," I have it on very good authority that a Graeter and an Aglamesis briefly dated during high school.
But I'm not quite sure what point you were trying to make.
Right on first two; wrong on the third; wimp-out on the last.
Point is: in nearly most things/issues it really is either/or. There are very few instances where there is a "moderate" or fence-sitting position. Case in point: Illegal immigration. For me, an alien here illegally never can become legal in the sense they can become citizens and be enfranchised. They can, however, become citizens provided they return home and apply for citizenship through the appropriate and historic method. They can become "legal" but they can never vote. That's the price paid for breaking the law originally. An alien can also become "legal" at a lower level, for employment purposes only. No citizenship, no enfranchisement. This can happen quickly and not require a return to the alien's country of origin.
Now, I would posit this position is on one side of the wall, so to speak, and that others, on the other, would accept nothing more than quick citizenship and enfranchisement. And never the twain shall meet.
There are positions on both side of the wall that might hold beliefs that are different by a few degrees - for example, some would never grant citizenship or the vote - but they still fall squarely on one side of the divide.
A moderate piece of ground seldom exists.
There are only two types of people in the world ............. Those who edge their driveways and sidewalks and those who don't.
LOL You just expressed a more moderate view of illegal immigrants than many, if not most, on the far right by proposing to allow illegals to become legal at a lower level without first going home! You, you, moderate, you! Shouldn't we send them all home as long as there are unemployed Mericans?
And for the record, Camp Washington Chili runs circles around Skyline and Gold Star.
Similar threads
