Wouldn't a centrist win every election?

an ant wrote:

A smart technique for a ‘centrist’ candidate would be to cast both D and R as essentially the same in their despicability, and then define themselves as the reasonable alternative to the extremes of both parties.

That's literally the technique employed by high-horse centrists which has given centrists their reputation as the most intellectually bankrupt. Centrists acting like theyre better than everyone because they have no convictions or strong opinions about anything is the reason no one likes them.

"Democrats and Republicans are both equally bad, I'm the only reasonable one. Left and right are both bad, I'm different" is the most childish stance you can have in political discourse. You might as well just say you don't understand politics and have no interest in doing so.

OozmaKappa wrote:

an ant wrote:

A smart technique for a ‘centrist’ candidate would be to cast both D and R as essentially the same in their despicability, and then define themselves as the reasonable alternative to the extremes of both parties.

That's literally the technique employed by high-horse centrists which has given centrists their reputation as the most intellectually bankrupt. Centrists acting like theyre better than everyone because they have no convictions or strong opinions about anything is the reason no one likes them.

"Democrats and Republicans are both equally bad, I'm the only reasonable one. Left and right are both bad, I'm different" is the most childish stance you can have in political discourse. You might as well just say you don't understand politics and have no interest in doing so.

+1

Centrism is for the people who were average at everything at school so had to show the grownups they're extra sensible and mature.

No. Someone that’s wishy washy is giant pxssy. I recently moved from a city with a mayor like that. Didn’t accomplish sh!t because he didn’t want to piss anyone off. Just a nice guy. But couldn’t make any hard decisions.

Tatar... wrote:

+1

Centrism is for the people who were average at everything at school so had to show the grownups they're extra sensible and mature.

extremism is for the simple minded people who cant understand nuance. They are the onrs that go vegan or paleo instead of just eating a balanced diet.

It would be amusing to know how people would vote if the people they elected actually implemented the policies they said they would.

What are you arguing? That black people snd women actually could vote and weren’t treated as non-citizens but no one realized it?

By passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Why were people so stupid for so long on this?

The Constitution has a provision that says, “if broke, please fix.”

A faction of Democrats left. Reagan was another one.

Democrats before 1900 were very much the party of states’ rights and Republicans were the party for federal supremacy. That switched between World War I and World War II.

What policies are they supporting that are against their own interests?

slaaa wrote:

Tatar... wrote:

+1

Centrism is for the people who were average at everything at school so had to show the grownups they're extra sensible and mature.

extremism is for the simple minded people who cant understand nuance. They are the onrs that go vegan or paleo instead of just eating a balanced diet.

It would be amusing to know how people would vote if the people they elected actually implemented the policies they said they would.

So if youre not a centrist... youre an extremist?

Buddy I think you forgot about that area in between the middle and the extremes.

OozmaKappa wrote:

slaaa wrote:

extremism is for the simple minded people who cant understand nuance. They are the onrs that go vegan or paleo instead of just eating a balanced diet.

It would be amusing to know how people would vote if the people they elected actually implemented the policies they said they would.

So if youre not a centrist... youre an extremist?

Buddy I think you forgot about that area in between the middle and the extremes.

So the people that arent as average as the moderates but not as exceptional as the extremists? You mean like the prolifers who think abortion is murder but who are in favor of murdering babies in the case of rape/incest? thats about 2/3rds the prolife movement acxording to recent surveys. Those are the people who have no faith in their moral stance.

slaaa wrote:

Tatar... wrote:

+1

Centrism is for the people who were average at everything at school so had to show the grownups they're extra sensible and mature.

extremism is for the simple minded people who cant understand nuance. They are the onrs that go vegan or paleo instead of just eating a balanced diet.

It would be amusing to know how people would vote if the people they elected actually implemented the policies they said they would.

I'm not pro-extremism, centrism itself can be very extreme, if you've not got a vision and just do whatever's practical at the time you can justify any action and backtrack on anything at a moment's notice. Nothing's off limits for a government that says it's not constrained by ideology.

Centrists say they're source material is from left and right but have disdain for both. They are anti-politics and pretend they can make decisions that please everybody, which they can't, it's childlike to think so. I want politicians to represent alternatives and the people those alternatives would benefit.

Yeah dude, this explains why Mayor Pete dominated in 2020

What are you arguing? That black people snd women actually could vote and weren’t treated as non-citizens but no one realized it?

This is the problem with ignorance... You are completely unaware of what the world looked like in the 18th century. Judging 18th century people by modern standards is absolutely idiotic.

NO ONE let women vote back then for a myriad of reasons and it's a LOT more nuanced than comprehend.

The point is the constitution did not exclude them which left the door open. if the founders were the racist bigoted monsters you leftists claim them to be they would have specifically forbade it in the document. They did not.

By passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Take a look at how the average black was doing in 1960 and how they're doing today. Democrats have completely destroyed the black family and made poverty worse than it was in 1960. The CRA wasn't just a symbolic Kumbaya document. It implemented policies which were devastating to the black community. ON PURPOSE. The bedrock of the Democratic party is the people who depend on the free stuff and the morons who think giving away other people's money makes them a good person.

Why were people so stupid for so long on this?

They weren't "stupid" they just didn't think like you do. It is HILARIOUS that you think after 200,000 years of human existence suddenly YOU have it all figured out... People in 100 years will think you were a barbarian too.

The Constitution has a provision that says, “if broke, please fix.”

Yea that's one of it's strengths. But the founders didn't want morons winning a simple majority and doing something idiotic so it's difficult to change by design. The founders were WAY smarter than anyone in politics today.

Democrats before 1900 were very much the party of states’ rights and Republicans were the party for federal supremacy. That switched between World War I and World War II.

LOL... googled that did ya? Can you think of anything that happened in the 1860s that might have led to that trend? Hint: Democrats started a war to dissolve the Union in order to protect slavery. Democrats weren't "states' rights" they were Pro-Slavery. Crack a book ffs...

At the turn of the century both parties got enamored with progressivism. The Republicans wised up and became pro-business and the Democrats became the party of big government they've been ever since. FDR was basically a communist.

What policies are they supporting that are against their own interests?[

By voting for Democrats they are supporting broken homes and the resulting poverty and high crime. Only 1 party in the nation has a vested interest in keeping people uneducated and on government assistance.

Liberals are morons.. wrote:

Do you have any actual counter points to challenge the facts presented? Or do you just want to lazily suggest that such cases are rare and thus acceptable?

Remote and and completely uncommon problems are not a valid reason not to have to prove your identity before you vote. I'm all for making it easier and free to get an ID.

I would be in favor of showing ID to vote, but FIRST ID should be completely free and really easy to get.

I currently moved from one state to another and had to get a new ID. Due to a peculiarity on my name and incompetence of the office that gave conflicting information I had to spend a substantial amount of time assembling the required documents, take two half days off to visit the office and travel a substantial distance every time by public transportation. If I did not need the new ID ASAP, I would have probably given up and would not be eligible for voting.

At the office I met a lot of people that was also struggling with the system and was being denied ID for a variety of reasons. So I don't think this is a "remote and completely uncommon problem".

Maybe the reason you struggled to get an ID is that youre just incredibly stupid.

I think inconveniencing a handful of people is much less harmful than undermining the integrity of our elections.

Possibly... but nothing in the constitution states that stupid people cannot vote.

Liberals are morons.. wrote:

I think inconveniencing a handful of people is much less harmful than undermining the integrity of our elections.

If voter turnout was >90% and fraud widespread, I'd agree with you. But the last elections had a 66% turnout and, after extensive recounting and investigations, only a handful people out of 180M has been found voting illegally in a way that would have been prevented by voter ID.

So this is the solution to a non-existing problem that exacerbates a very real problem.

mid D guy wrote:

Liberals are morons.. wrote:

I think inconveniencing a handful of people is much less harmful than undermining the integrity of our elections.

If voter turnout was >90% and fraud widespread, I'd agree with you. But the last elections had a 66% turnout and, after extensive recounting and investigations, only a handful people out of 180M has been found voting illegally in a way that would have been prevented by voter ID.

So this is the solution to a non-existing problem that exacerbates a very real problem.

Mass mail in voting makes it virtually impossible to detect fraud that's entirely the point of it.

It's not a very real problem. For every voter who can't get an ID there's 1000 in nursing homes voting in their place.

Democrats don't care about the handful without IDs they want to be able to continue to exploit the lack of ID.

Liberals are morons.. wrote:

Mass mail in voting makes it virtually impossible to detect fraud that's entirely the point of it.

It's not a very real problem. For every voter who can't get an ID there's 1000 in nursing homes voting in their place.

Democrats don't care about the handful without IDs they want to be able to continue to exploit the lack of ID.

Thanks for confirming that there is no evidence of fraud. This laws are based on an assumption that there MIGHT be extensive fraud and you are assuming it is tilted democrat. This is based on... nothing: the very few instances of fraud discovered were pretty evenly distributed and, if anything, slightly tilting Republican.

So the well-documented issue that there are hundreds of thousand to millions of people that find it difficult to get an ID is not a very real problem; but the totally hypothetical voter fraud, based on no evidence, is a real problem. I get it.

Liberals are morons.. wrote:

mid D guy wrote:

If voter turnout was >90% and fraud widespread, I'd agree with you. But the last elections had a 66% turnout and, after extensive recounting and investigations, only a handful people out of 180M has been found voting illegally in a way that would have been prevented by voter ID.

So this is the solution to a non-existing problem that exacerbates a very real problem.

Mass mail in voting makes it virtually impossible to detect fraud that's entirely the point of it.

It's not a very real problem. For every voter who can't get an ID there's 1000 in nursing homes voting in their place.

Democrats don't care about the handful without IDs they want to be able to continue to exploit the lack of ID.

I think it’s funny that you believe this. You truly think that democrat = evil

Liberals are morons.. wrote:

This is the problem with ignorance... .

How was your Saturday night on letsrun?