(12-26-2019 04:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Two things about your two things:
1) Moderate relative to socialists is not necessarily moderate. A wolf is moderate relative to a rabid dog.
2) When I googled this, this was one of the citations that came up. would you be more inclined to accept it if it was cited on. say, CNN, which was the original source?

One more thing:
When I google something, many of the the sources that come up are sources I don't go to and may not have heard of. I have never heard of Newsbusters before, but I presume the film clip from CNN is unedited.

They are moderate relative to the current construct of the democratic party. That doesn't mean a true national moderate, those folks can't win democratic primaries or republican primaries.

From the article, it is clear that Newsbusters has a strong right-wing slant. The main stream media is not without fault, but their journalists (as opposed to the talking heads) are generally good at neutrality and telling the truth. So yes, I would believe a CNN journalist over Newsbusters. And I accept the proposition because it is true, not because of the source material.