CSNbbs

Full Version: We need more Moderates and less extremists
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Extremes at both ends of the spectrum are ruining the country. We need more pragmatists working for solutions and less ideological extremists that are unwilling to compromise.

"The so-called Blue Dog Coalition of moderate Democrats, many of them white Southerners, shrunk from 54 in 2008 to 26 in 2010 to 14 in 2012. It will likely shrink further after November.

Such political polarization makes governing more difficult and political gridlock more likely, said Andrew Taylor, a political scientist at N.C. State University. Moderates are the ones most likely to work across party lines to reach compromises.

It is possible that the only moderate left standing after this year’s election will be Republican Walter Jones (180) of Farmville. But that is not a sure thing. He faces Taylor Griffin of New Bern in the GOP primary – his most serious challenge in years from the political right.

All other members of the state’s congressional delegation are either conservatives such as Renee Ellmers, Virginia Foxx, Patrick McHenry, Mark Meadows and Richard Hudson, or liberals such as G.K. Butterfield, David Price or Mel Watt, who recently resigned to take a housing post in the Obama administration."

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/01/18/3...rylink=cpy
I'm all for gridlock. The less DC gets done, the less they mess with my life.
(01-18-2014 11:10 PM)RaiderATO Wrote: [ -> ]I'm all for gridlock. The less DC gets done, the less they mess with my life.

Bingo. "Getting things done" got my healthcare hijacked. I vastly prefer gridlock. The more locked the better
(01-18-2014 11:13 PM)EagleX Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-18-2014 11:10 PM)RaiderATO Wrote: [ -> ]I'm all for gridlock. The less DC gets done, the less they mess with my life.

Bingo. "Getting things done" got my healthcare hijacked. I vastly prefer gridlock. The more locked the better

You do realize that you guys are the ideological extremists I was referring to don't you?01-lauramac2
I could care less about moderates and compromise. Keep Washington tied up. Hell, pay em all double to just go home. Watch Oprah or something.
(01-18-2014 11:20 PM)dawgitall Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-18-2014 11:13 PM)EagleX Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-18-2014 11:10 PM)RaiderATO Wrote: [ -> ]I'm all for gridlock. The less DC gets done, the less they mess with my life.

Bingo. "Getting things done" got my healthcare hijacked. I vastly prefer gridlock. The more locked the better

You do realize that you guys are the ideological extremists I was referring to don't you?01-lauramac2

People that decry "gridlock" are usually hard pressed to explain what urgent government action, what universally agreed upon thing, what nationally acclaimed objective, is being cruelly imprisoned by gridlock.
(01-18-2014 11:22 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ]I could care less about moderates and compromise. Keep Washington tied up. Hell, pay em all double to just go home. Watch Oprah or something.

That is because you are one of the ideological extremists I was referring to.03-zzz
I've been clear were I stand. Pretty sure no one was waiting for your ruling on the matter.
Just like in speech, the best words are the ones never spoken.

The last thing many of us want is more government programs driving us into a socialist morass. Unless Congress is repealing laws and limiting the power of agencies, then I hope they are gridlocked to leave me the hell alone.
What is a moderate anyway? There are certainly no shortages on the R side.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
'Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and let me remind you also, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.'
~Barry Goldwater
You fight fire with fire. You don't go to the middle when the extreme Left is running rampant
through the land.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
(01-19-2014 04:39 AM)dmacfour Wrote: [ -> ]Two wrongs don't make a right.

You keep turning right and you eventually get to where you need
to be.
I think an example or two would be instructive.

First, let's examine abortion. I recall seeing a poll where the spectrum of opinions on the subject showed a more moderate approach than generally recognized. About 10% of the US voting population support unrestricted abortion. Also about 10% support total prohibition. That leaves about 80% in the middle. On the left, people support abortion yet are willing to accept some restrictions, such as a ban on partial birth abortions and parental notification. On the right, people abhor abortion but are willing to concede a need in cases like rape.

However, the dialogue is driven by the margins, because they are in effect single issue groups who put their entire effort in their cause.

Another issue would be gun control. On one hand, there is a group that wants guns eliminated totally. On the other, is the group that supports unfettered ownership. Again in the middle, there are many who support the ownership of guns but see no problem with some limits on weaponns and background checks. Again the dialogue tends to be driven by the margins.

My point is that we already have many more moderates than extremists but the few extremists tend to be the loudest and most committed voices. And dare I say, this board seems to contain mostly extremists.
(01-19-2014 10:06 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote: [ -> ]I think an example or two would be instructive.

First, let's examine abortion. I recall seeing a poll where the spectrum of opinions on the subject showed a more moderate approach than generally recognized. About 10% of the US voting population support unrestricted abortion. Also about 10% support total prohibition. That leaves about 80% in the middle. On the left, people support abortion yet are willing to accept some restrictions, such as a ban on partial birth abortions and parental notification. On the right, people abhor abortion but are willing to concede a need in cases like rape.

However, the dialogue is driven by the margins, because they are in effect single issue groups who put their entire effort in their cause.

Another issue would be gun control. On one hand, there is a group that wants guns eliminated totally. On the other, is the group that supports unfettered ownership. Again in the middle, there are many who support the ownership of guns but see no problem with some limits on weaponns and background checks. Again the dialogue tends to be driven by the margins.

My point is that we already have many more moderates than extremists but the few extremists tend to be the loudest and most committed voices. And dare I say, this board seems to contain mostly extremists.

I don't think there are mostly extremists here (there are people with polar opposite opinions but that does not make them extremists for either side.) If there aren't many moderates on here it is more likely due to moderates being less passionate in their political opinions therefore they aren't as engaged and wouldn't be on a politics forum.
(01-19-2014 10:06 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote: [ -> ]I think an example or two would be instructive.

First, let's examine abortion. I recall seeing a poll where the spectrum of opinions on the subject showed a more moderate approach than generally recognized. About 10% of the US voting population support unrestricted abortion. Also about 10% support total prohibition. That leaves about 80% in the middle. On the left, people support abortion yet are willing to accept some restrictions, such as a ban on partial birth abortions and parental notification. On the right, people abhor abortion but are willing to concede a need in cases like rape.

However, the dialogue is driven by the margins, because they are in effect single issue groups who put their entire effort in their cause.

Another issue would be gun control. On one hand, there is a group that wants guns eliminated totally. On the other, is the group that supports unfettered ownership. Again in the middle, there are many who support the ownership of guns but see no problem with some limits on weaponns and background checks. Again the dialogue tends to be driven by the margins.

My point is that we already have many more moderates than extremists but the few extremists tend to be the loudest and most committed voices. And dare I say, this board seems to contain mostly extremists.

Well said
(01-19-2014 10:23 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-19-2014 10:06 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote: [ -> ]I think an example or two would be instructive.

First, let's examine abortion. I recall seeing a poll where the spectrum of opinions on the subject showed a more moderate approach than generally recognized. About 10% of the US voting population support unrestricted abortion. Also about 10% support total prohibition. That leaves about 80% in the middle. On the left, people support abortion yet are willing to accept some restrictions, such as a ban on partial birth abortions and parental notification. On the right, people abhor abortion but are willing to concede a need in cases like rape.

However, the dialogue is driven by the margins, because they are in effect single issue groups who put their entire effort in their cause.

Another issue would be gun control. On one hand, there is a group that wants guns eliminated totally. On the other, is the group that supports unfettered ownership. Again in the middle, there are many who support the ownership of guns but see no problem with some limits on weaponns and background checks. Again the dialogue tends to be driven by the margins.

My point is that we already have many more moderates than extremists but the few extremists tend to be the loudest and most committed voices. And dare I say, this board seems to contain mostly extremists.

I don't think there are mostly extremists here (there are people with polar opposite opinions but that does not make them extremists for either side.) If there aren't many moderates on here it is more likely due to moderates being less passionate in their political opinions therefore they aren't as engaged and wouldn't be on a politics forum.

I'm a moderate and am very active politically.
(01-18-2014 10:32 PM)dawgitall Wrote: [ -> ]Extremes at both ends of the spectrum are ruining the country. We need more pragmatists working for solutions and less ideological extremists that are unwilling to compromise.

"The so-called Blue Dog Coalition of moderate Democrats, many of them white Southerners, shrunk from 54 in 2008 to 26 in 2010 to 14 in 2012. It will likely shrink further after November.

Such political polarization makes governing more difficult and political gridlock more likely, said Andrew Taylor, a political scientist at N.C. State University. Moderates are the ones most likely to work across party lines to reach compromises.

It is possible that the only moderate left standing after this year’s election will be Republican Walter Jones (180) of Farmville. But that is not a sure thing. He faces Taylor Griffin of New Bern in the GOP primary – his most serious challenge in years from the political right.

All other members of the state’s congressional delegation are either conservatives such as Renee Ellmers, Virginia Foxx, Patrick McHenry, Mark Meadows and Richard Hudson, or liberals such as G.K. Butterfield, David Price or Mel Watt, who recently resigned to take a housing post in the Obama administration."

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/01/18/3...rylink=cpy

Translation: For you and the author

"we need more people who trend left than right."

thread/
(01-19-2014 10:06 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote: [ -> ]I think an example or two would be instructive.

First, let's examine abortion. I recall seeing a poll where the spectrum of opinions on the subject showed a more moderate approach than generally recognized. About 10% of the US voting population support unrestricted abortion. Also about 10% support total prohibition. That leaves about 80% in the middle. On the left, people support abortion yet are willing to accept some restrictions, such as a ban on partial birth abortions and parental notification. On the right, people abhor abortion but are willing to concede a need in cases like rape.

However, the dialogue is driven by the margins, because they are in effect single issue groups who put their entire effort in their cause.

Another issue would be gun control. On one hand, there is a group that wants guns eliminated totally. On the other, is the group that supports unfettered ownership. Again in the middle, there are many who support the ownership of guns but see no problem with some limits on weaponns and background checks. Again the dialogue tends to be driven by the margins.

My point is that we already have many more moderates than extremists but the few extremists tend to be the loudest and most committed voices. And dare I say, this board seems to contain mostly extremists.

I am no doubt an extremist. I extremely despise the government. A vast part of what it does....I have zero need for or desire to have. If it concentrated on infrastructure, security and arbitration?...I would have no problem with the extraction of the fruits of my labor for financing.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Reference URL's