Were a Centrist 3rd party to form, would you support it?

[Remodeling Maidiac]

We had 2 Bush's & Clinton. That's enough "centrist" for one lifetime.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

It's not hard to grasp what nutty is. A far right, uncompromising republican is a nutty.

==========================

likewise for the leftwing scumbags of the demoncRAT party, "nutty"
does not fully describe those assholes..., traitorous commies comes close.

can anyone tell me when Harry "Whorehouse" Reid and his illegal alien mulatto buddy ever tried compromising with the right side of any fucking thing ?

Obama reportedly plotting end-run around Congress on global climate change deal

The New York Times reported that the agreement is slated to be signed at a United Nations meeting next year in Paris. However, because the U.S. Senate is unlikely to ratify any international climate treaty, Obama’s negotiators reportedly are working toward an alternative agreement – a “politically binding” deal that would serve in lieu of a bona-fide treaty.

Don't you ever get tired of watching Fox News?

Don't you ever get tired of posting empty handed? Fox News didn't create the fuck up otherwise know as Obama.

 

[Youch]

Those are your words, are they not??

Well your premise does not follow from your conclusion. It has no bridge. That means your "issue" is imaginary.
Can't make it simpler than that.

Sure as hell shortened up the nested quote, didn't it?

That's gratitude for ya...

Like I said, willfully ignorant. RIF, and the subject really isn't that complicated.

 

[Youch]

Just curious.

This could be an interesting discussion.

People would probably be interested in defining "Centrist".

Also, you might want to count in the personality factor. Were a really well known American to decide to take an independent run for the White House, would you support that person?

A centrist is a person who lacks conviction, knowledge or a moral compass.....a fence-sitter. So, no, I would not vote for anyone who does not understand political philosophy.

There really is no such thing as a centrist, but there are many people who fall somewhere between the far left and far right. There are also many who may be more conservative on fiscal issues but liberal on social issues. Where do we put all these people? Just making a "Centrist" party does not solve anything. On top of that, having a legitimate third party would do nothing good for politics in America because our system really is set up to work best with a two party system.

I agree with most of that.

Yes, people do fall along a spectrum of political points of view. After all, political parties do not define positions for all people. To your point, what on earth would a 3rd Party represent?

 

[candycorn]

Just curious.

This could be an interesting discussion.

People would probably be interested in defining "Centrist".

Also, you might want to count in the personality factor. Were a really well known American to decide to take an independent run for the White House, would you support that person?

I had to answer "I don't know." I vote person, not Party. Depends on what the individual candidate's positions are before I could say yes or no.

The ideal candidate would always be a centrist. There are good ideas from the right wing and there are good ideas from the left wing. Rejecting an idea because it's not your own is crazy. Best idea should win; regardless of it's origin.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't think we need a centrist party so much as we need a party that works for the interests of Americans rather than the interests of special interest groups (Corporations, the Religious Right, Unions, Trial lawyers).

 

[JWBooth]

Here's how it manifests: Most Americans are not hardcore partisans, they're not going to agree with/defend to the death their party on every issue. Different overall philosophies? Sure, great. But from an independent perspective, I can tell you that both parties look like wild-eyed zealots right now and are not very attractive.

The fact is, there ARE other third parties, and Americans may vote for their candidates, e.g. Ross Perot, without whom Clinton would probably never had been elected.

But is there a CENTRIST party? What exactly would the platform of a, "centrist party be?"

Would a Centrist party simply adopt a anti-Republican, ant-Democrat platform?

I hate to mention specifics, because the intelligence of the Average USMB poster will only allow them to use them to change the topic, but can anyone imagine how a Centrist Political Platform would be composed?

Had Beauregard pursued the damnyankee army to DC at Manassas, the war could have ended with favorable terms for the South, point being we can maybe all day. Any vote Bush didn't get was a rejection of his continued services.

 

[JWBooth]

Just curious.

This could be an interesting discussion.

People would probably be interested in defining "Centrist".

Also, you might want to count in the personality factor. Were a really well known American to decide to take an independent run for the White House, would you support that person?

Democrats are already the centrist party.

Thanks for the laugh. Humor, intended or not, is a balm for the soul.

 

[Samson]

Here's how it manifests: Most Americans are not hardcore partisans, they're not going to agree with/defend to the death their party on every issue. Different overall philosophies? Sure, great. But from an independent perspective, I can tell you that both parties look like wild-eyed zealots right now and are not very attractive.

The fact is, there ARE other third parties, and Americans may vote for their candidates, e.g. Ross Perot, without whom Clinton would probably never had been elected.

But is there a CENTRIST party? What exactly would the platform of a, "centrist party be?"

Would a Centrist party simply adopt a anti-Republican, ant-Democrat platform?

I hate to mention specifics, because the intelligence of the Average USMB poster will only allow them to use them to change the topic, but can anyone imagine how a Centrist Political Platform would be composed?

That is a bald faced lie.

Two-way polling in 1992 showed that Clinton came out of the convention with a 10 point lead over incumbent George H. W. Bush, that lead expanded to as far as +13, and then, when Ross Perot RE-ENTERED the race, that lead shrunk to about +6. But it was Bush 41 who landed at a measly 37% in 1992, not Clinton. In fact, on the eve of the election in 1992, CNN posted TWO polls: a three way poll, showing Clinton 44 - Bush 38 - Perot 16 (makes 98), and a strict two way poll: Clinton 55 - Bush 45.

Without Perot, Clinton would have easily sailed over 50%. Easily.

Only a moron would be so confident in 1992 CNN polls: At times your Naivety can be astonishing.

I wondered who would bite down hardest on the red herring. I should have predicted it was the least transparent of partisan wonks

 

[Samson]

Any vote Bush didn't get was a rejection of his continued services.

Obviously.

Perhaps ironically, his "continued service" was precisely the example of "Centrist" politics that is the subject of our discussion:

No New Taxes, on the right, but raising taxes on the left.

No Iraqi Regime Change on the left, but the use of military force to Free Kuwait on the right.

Americans seem to hate the Centrist.

 

[Mac1958]

Just curious.

This could be an interesting discussion.

People would probably be interested in defining "Centrist".

Also, you might want to count in the personality factor. Were a really well known American to decide to take an independent run for the White House, would you support that person?

Democrats are already the centrist party.

Thanks for the laugh. Humor, intended or not, is a balm for the soul.

Many Democrats feel that theirs is the centrist party, I doubt that this is a joke. That's why Republicans need to be wary of polls that say that few people are liberals, because liberals see themselves like this. So they would identify themselves to a poster as moderate, not liberal.

.

.

 

[Samson]

Just curious.

This could be an interesting discussion.

People would probably be interested in defining "Centrist".

Also, you might want to count in the personality factor. Were a really well known American to decide to take an independent run for the White House, would you support that person?

Democrats are already the centrist party.

Thanks for the laugh. Humor, intended or not, is a balm for the soul.

Many Democrats feel that theirs is the centrist party, I doubt that this is a joke. That's why Republicans need to be wary of polls that say that few people are liberals, because liberals see themselves like this. So they would identify themselves to a poster as moderate, not liberal.

Clearly being a centrist is a matter of perspective.

I'm the most fair-minded person I know.

 

[Kondor3]

Just curious.

This could be an interesting discussion.

People would probably be interested in defining "Centrist".

Also, you might want to count in the personality factor. Were a really well known American to decide to take an independent run for the White House, would you support that person?

I had to answer "I don't know." I vote person, not Party. Depends on what the individual candidate's positions are before I could say yes or no.

The ideal candidate would always be a centrist. There are good ideas from the right wing and there are good ideas from the left wing. Rejecting an idea because it's not your own is crazy. Best idea should win; regardless of it's origin.

 

[Silhouette]

I chose "yes under conditions" in the poll. The condition would be the formation of TWO centrist parties. Just left of center and just right of center. That wouldn't water down the vote in either direction and the kooks at the either end of the spectrum would quickly fall into minority fringe groups as the masses of the sane would rush to the center. We would very quickly have a "sane democratic party" and a "sane republican party". It would be excellent for the country. It might even save it.

 

[Pogo]

If voters wanted solutions, they'd pay way more attention to who they vote for. There's be fewer huge swings in midterm elections, and less reliance by parties to use bullshit to get voters.
Anyway, I take a dim view of third parties. They just don't do anything except act as spoilers for their own values. The US Constitution itself makes the legislature prone to only have two parties. If we had a proportionally representative legislature, we might see far different results. Even the Presidency is prone to one party or the other without something like the Condorcet Method to elect the Executive.

Not really.

Voters normally have very few choices about "who they vote for."

For example, Presidential Debates.

How many third party candidates are invited to appear?

You make another interesting point about constitutionality and a "proportionally representative legislature." Do you know how many people each legislature represented when the constitution was written? Hint: It wasn't the nearly 800,000 constituents that it is today: How can any third party be distinguished in a heard like this? It cannot. This is hardly the representative government that the founders of the USA envisioned.

Both good points.
The presidential debates used to be run by nonpartisan outside interested parties (League of Women voters I think) but the two party (singular intentional) have colluded to set the ground rules and exclude any threat to the holy Duopoly. And that's horseshit.

 

[Pogo]

Just curious.

This could be an interesting discussion.

People would probably be interested in defining "Centrist".

Also, you might want to count in the personality factor. Were a really well known American to decide to take an independent run for the White House, would you support that person?

A centrist is a person who lacks conviction, knowledge or a moral compass.....a fence-sitter. So, no, I would not vote for anyone who does not understand political philosophy.

Why do you think this? Do you think that only the extremes have something to contribute to the forward movement of US-American society?

I disagree with the context of the question. Conservatism isn't extreme, it is natural, as it allows people to pursue their own life, and does not grow a centralized government to lord over us, paid for by confiscatory policies. Modern liberalism (not classical liberalism) is a vehicle to expand government, in a sense, a self-serving governmental construct that creates the much-needed dependents to feed and support it.

But don't take my word for it (few do). Just draw from the vast wealth of knowledge that history gives us. Liberalism ALWAYS leads to tyranny, everywhere and every time it has been tired. Conservatism is the attempt at an antidote, and most eloquently inculcated in our Constitution.

I love this topic. Anyone who wants to discuss in detail, turn me on....

I would, but you read way too fast. You'd never digest it.

 

[Pogo]

I chose "yes under conditions" in the poll. The condition would be the formation of TWO centrist parties. Just left of center and just right of center. That wouldn't water down the vote in either direction and the kooks at the either end of the spectrum would quickly fall into minority fringe groups as the masses of the sane would rush to the center. We would very quickly have a "sane democratic party" and a "sane republican party". It would be excellent for the country. It might even save it.

The problem with that is you cannot create the Acme Political Party and declare it's going to represent A, B and C, and expect it to stay that way. Parties change with the political wind, because the only purpose of a party is to pool resources for the purpose of acquiring power. And when the means to that power fall outside the boundaries that party has set for itself, it will eventually go fetch. And that's when it compromises its principles, and it's no longer the Acme Party; it sells out, an inch at a time.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Just curious.

This could be an interesting discussion.

People would probably be interested in defining "Centrist".

Also, you might want to count in the personality factor. Were a really well known American to decide to take an independent run for the White House, would you support that person?

A centrist is a person who lacks conviction, knowledge or a moral compass.....a fence-sitter. So, no, I would not vote for anyone who does not understand political philosophy.

There really is no such thing as a centrist, but there are many people who fall somewhere between the far left and far right. There are also many who may be more conservative on fiscal issues but liberal on social issues. Where do we put all these people? Just making a "Centrist" party does not solve anything. On top of that, having a legitimate third party would do nothing good for politics in America because our system really is set up to work best with a two party system.

then the system needs to be changed because those 2 parties have failed the country and have done nothing but put a nice big chasm in between us....of course they havent failed the farther left and right,this is what they want...division....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Just curious.

This could be an interesting discussion.

People would probably be interested in defining "Centrist".

Also, you might want to count in the personality factor. Were a really well known American to decide to take an independent run for the White House, would you support that person?

A centrist is a person who lacks conviction, knowledge or a moral compass.....a fence-sitter. So, no, I would not vote for anyone who does not understand political philosophy.

There really is no such thing as a centrist, but there are many people who fall somewhere between the far left and far right. There are also many who may be more conservative on fiscal issues but liberal on social issues. Where do we put all these people? Just making a "Centrist" party does not solve anything. On top of that, having a legitimate third party would do nothing good for politics in America because our system really is set up to work best with a two party system.

I agree with most of that.

Yes, people do fall along a spectrum of political points of view. After all, political parties do not define positions for all people. To your point, what on earth would a 3rd Party represent?

America.....

 

[Pogo]

Just curious.

This could be an interesting discussion.

People would probably be interested in defining "Centrist".

Also, you might want to count in the personality factor. Were a really well known American to decide to take an independent run for the White House, would you support that person?

A centrist is a person who lacks conviction, knowledge or a moral compass.....a fence-sitter. So, no, I would not vote for anyone who does not understand political philosophy.

There really is no such thing as a centrist, but there are many people who fall somewhere between the far left and far right. There are also many who may be more conservative on fiscal issues but liberal on social issues. Where do we put all these people? Just making a "Centrist" party does not solve anything. On top of that, having a legitimate third party would do nothing good for politics in America because our system really is set up to work best with a two party system.

then the system needs to be changed because those 2 parties have failed the country and have done nothing but put a nice big chasm in between us....of course they havent failed the farther left and right,this is what they want...division....

Readily agreed. People keep squabbling that my red or blue puppet can beat up your blue or red puppet, none of them ever looking up to see who's pulling both puppet's strings.

And for those pulling the strings, that's exactly what they want -- squabbling. That keeps your eyes off what they're doing. Not unlike a pickpocket.