Where have all the moderates gone?

a reply to: olaru12

We are still here, but what do we have to talk about? Nothing to chose from in this election, I don't have a horse in this race. There is no one running that I would vote for, I am done, and it feels like we never had a choice anyway. Same old, same old...

I had a doctors appointment last week, I love my doc and I appreciate her dedication. While this may seem off topic, it's not. I asked her what she sees coming her way in the next few years, because I appreciate the bs that she has had to go through the past few years. Bernie, Clinton, Trump or Cruz? No matter how you slice it, things will change, for better or worse, but for me and a lot of others, we just feel like a flea in a hurricane.

I took a where do you stand politic test a few years ago and it dumped me smack dab in the middle. I'm a constitutionalist that thinks the preamble set the tone for constitutional interpretation and do not agree with many many of the twisted interpretations that have basically allowed the current political system to basically completely ignore our founding document(s)... and astounded(not really) to have had past presidential nominees like; Romney admitting he couldnt answer anything about the constitution that it better to ask Ron Paul...

So, according to this rather lengthy questionnaire I mentioned? Yes; I'm a moderate Independent... even though my views and commentary often get called liberal. Yes I like Life, Liberty and unhindered pursuit of things that make me happy if they do not physically harm anyone directly, myself not included as I am a responsible adult and understand risk... and I do not give a flying fig leaf what party someone is IF they represent the actual citizens that VOTED them into office. Not the corporations are people superpac buying out our voice nonsense people status through political corruption of our system.

Mr. Sanders is wanting to actually represent living breathing people; not the entities labeled people like pretty much every other candidate. From what I understand Mr. Trump is doing the same last I heard but he needs to start somewhere else in politics as he is way to inexperienced for POTUS imho especially where foreign affairs are concerned having made enemies of countries in Europe already and not even in any political office... and well Mrs. Clinton, sorry but you are shrewd and double dealing the others not even with mention unless making a walked into a bar joke and Cruz is baptizing a pig in the bathroom or something... not only has the US had too much lying, holier than thou, and underhandedness in the political spectrum for far too long I think Mr. Sanders may be too honest for politics but it's about time we and the rest of the world had some of that from government.


So, where am I as a moderate? Beside Bernie Sanders... I would say I back him; but Mr. Sanders actually has courage enough to stand with everyone, and consider their point of view regardless of color, gender, sexual identity, religion, national origin, or social/economic status as equal as human beings with common struggles and wants to reform government to represent WE the people equally; as it was intended by our historical document framework.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

If you are actually a constitutionalist, then you should be aware that most of what Sanders proposes is unconstitutional.

a reply to: ketsuko

Fishing? Because I see your hook but your bait stinks usually good for small pond fishing; careful you might find nessie exists here... so let me raise my head for a blurry photo

why is your reply a hook? well if I ignore the bait you can leave Mr. Sanders as wanting to scrap the constitution without any source or idea behind it you know just your word.

Gullible I am not, but at the same time I cant leave it flapping like that; im sure you understand.

So hey here's your chance for empire strikes back... and wanting to cast Bernie as a Sith lord in the Senate... twerking might be dead but hey shake your groove thang and back it up.

Now that; thats straightened out, like the hook? Im off...

a reply to: ketsuko

Yeah, sometimes.

Not this time.

This time it's stupid, wasting millions of dollars, and killing thousands and thousands of people.

When i hear the word moderate for a politician, I think of Jimmy Carter.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

If you are actually a constitutionalist, then you should be aware that most of what Sanders proposes is unconstitutional.

Specifically?

Bernie says a lot.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Erm, erm, but he's a Socialist! There's gotta be a lot of unconstitutional things there. There's just gotta!

His gun stances? That's about it. But he's no worse than Obama when it comes to that.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Gryphon66

Erm, erm, but he's a Socialist! There's gotta be a lot of unconstitutional things there. There's just gotta!

His gun stances? That's about it. But he's no worse than Obama when it comes to that.

LOL ...

Specifically on his gun stances then?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Gun-show loophole stuff and Assault Weapons, not really anything major. But you know, there's those people who think literally any restriction or mild inconvenience in between them and purchasing a gun is unconstitutional.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Gryphon66

Gun-show loophole stuff and Assault Weapons, not really anything major. But you know, there's those people who think literally any restriction or mild inconvenience in between them and purchasing a gun is unconstitutional.

Some folks do indeed, but per Hellerand numerous decisions of the Supreme Court, some folks are wrong.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

If you are actually a constitutionalist, then you should be aware that most of what Sanders proposes is unconstitutional.

Such as what?

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Government control of health care would require massive confiscation of systems beyond removing the mechanisms of choice.

Plenty of the hospitals in our system are privately owned and built and operated. Either a government control system puts them out of business or ends up taking them over to harmonize them with the single-payer system. That's 1/6th of our economy that then becomes state operated and controlled.

Massive loss of liberty there. Same as with the public education system, but at least it was more or less started as public.

Then there is the idea of state owned energy ... also a massive confiscation of assets ...

a reply to: ketsuko

You have to also look at something else with government control of healthcare.

Salaries.

Would doctors and nurses get paid the same?
How about companies that produce medical equipment? Would they be able to charge the same?
What of their employees?

a reply to: DBCowboy

My personal take is that under a Bernie presidency/political revolution, nurses would get paid more, doctors might get paid slightly less. However, there would be an offset of them having significantly lower student debt.
Depends. Are they price gouging?

Single-payer isn't the government controlling healthcare, anyway. The UK has government-run healthcare, Bernie's Single-payer is, I believe, closer to what we have here in Australia. (Where private hospitals do indeed still exist, I might add.)

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: DBCowboy

My personal take is that under a Bernie presidency/political revolution, nurses would get paid more, doctors might get paid slightly less. However, there would be an offset of them having significantly lower student debt.
Depends. Are they price gouging?

Single-payer isn't the government controlling healthcare, anyway. The UK has government-run healthcare, Bernie's Single-payer is, I believe, closer to what we have here in Australia. (Where private hospitals do indeed still exist, I might add.)

Medical supply industries offset their prices for VA's and charge private hospitals more. That way they can stay in business.

But if all hospitals basically become VA hospitals, then there'd be no way to offset prices..

Government would have to dictate wage/price control salaries for an entire supporting industry.

a reply to: Gothmog

It all started at least 16-20 years ago, by my watch. Politics have gotten steadily more divisive.

I will say that, the whole thing is more of a reality show than reality. I think I heard someone call politics "reality TV for ugly people"... Which sounds about right. It's like a psyop by the power brokers who win no matter who loses.

I look at the current landscape and think it looks more like WWE than sound governance.

Just raising my hand as one who dislikes both major parties. I lean right, but tend to think the better solutions will come from the middle.

originally posted by: ugmold
a reply to: muse7
I think more Parties would help this greatly, it would cut down on the hyperbolic behavior.

The Power Elite love this, we're at each others throats instead of theirs.

More parties would help the partisanship??? >2 party systems are classically more partisan and less stable. The reason for this is simple: is it easier to get two people to agree on something or is it easier to get a whole group of people to agree on something? Every flavor of extremist has their party.

In this election we would have a party for trump supporters, a party for cruz supporters, and a party for bush/kasich/christy supporters. On the other side we would have a party for socialist sanders supporters, a party for hillary supporters and maybe even a party for someone like O'malley. Now divide up the votes. How is this any better than the two party system?

Now, I'm not saying the two party system is perfect by any means. But it normally allows the centerist/moderate views to win, while the multi-party systems allow (or make it much easier for) extremist views to win.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: muse7

Just like a large majority of Trump supporters are young entitled men who watch anime 24/7 and are insanely misogynistic.

You were describing me correctly up to that point.(except for the young) Afraid you are going to have to show some statistics on that one...been married probably longer than you have been on the earth. No incident.

Muse I hear you. I'm 30 something moderate who follows a more classical liberal approach to politics and social issues. I have worked my ass off since I was 13, I've been poor at times and I also had some years in childhood where parents made some decent money. I have two kids of my own now and I am sick of seeing people take advantage of the system. Welfare, food stamps, what have you, there are plenty of people who game the system and rip taxpayers off. That said, I still support most of these programs simply because there are many people that would not survive without it. I know, I've been there.

As someone who voted for Obama twice and disappointed at the government as a whole, I look at the 2016 Presidential election as a referendum on not only current policy but on the entire system.

If Bernie gets the Democratic nod and Trump gets the GOP nod I would likely be in a toss up probably voting for Bernie.

If Hillary gets the Democratic nod and Trump gets GOP nod I will vote Trump

If Hillary gets the nod but any other Republican gets the nod other than John Kasich then I will be voting for an independent/third-party candidate.

a reply to: ketsuko

The Necessary and Proper Clause pretty much gives Congress the power to do just that. It's been settled in the Supreme Court since the early 1900's, that's why Obamacare hasn't been successfully repealed and won't be, not in a Constitutional challenge anyway. Only Congress can repeal it and only Congress can implement Bernie's plan.