Wait wait wait wait wait...
Dude, YOU ARE THE ONE SAYING MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.
If you are saying make it great AGAIN, you are saying IT ISN'T GREAT.
Rosanne Lamar Bee Left/Right Slugjam
- Thread starter KYtotheCore
- Start date
Wait wait wait wait wait...
Dude, YOU ARE THE ONE SAYING MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.
If you are saying make it great AGAIN, you are saying IT ISN'T GREAT.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I have voiced all along that I find it very distasteful to separate the families and very wrong. I also find trump distasteful in almost everything he does. My solution revolves around having more secure borders while making the process streamlined to become a citizen, or work here. These two things have to happen if we want to control the problem. I wont deny the problems trump has created. Ive never seen any business or company or gov't run and have this many defections. Its happened early and often. This can't be played off b/c of a "tough and demanding leader" type defections...it's b/c they hate who he is and how he conducts himself. The only answer for both sides is.....don't trot out divisive and one side thinking candidates the next go round. They cant let Bernie run, they cant let another clinton/obama disciple run, they cant let another cruz type run.
Its b/c politics is a game---Hayden would have got votes if he could have beat the media machine fueled clinton---but she had to much control for a guy like him to get exposure. Trumps election was forced by the way things are set up imo.
Good stuff, consistent with what you tend to post when you get reflective, and acknowledged reality.
I do wonder if the primary system has sort of derailed the Republican party... because in a primary it is generally only that party voting, and if you ONLY have Republicans voting you have a better chance of getting a farther-right candidate making it to the general election in Republican states. It seems that we have two factions within the GOP... the really far right tea party faction, and the more moderate faction... and they cannot seem to get on the same page, which ends up wasting their majorities in the House and Senate. You would think a very strong leader could get them all behind something, but obviously that isn't Trump, and Paul Ryan doesn't seem like that type. Not sure what the solution is.
In terms of immigration... I don't know. I honestly sometimes question if our system is really as broken as we think. Not legally, of course... but in terms of actual, on the ground results... our economy certainly likes illegal immigration... consumers generally benefit from it... and I'm not sure it hurts us as taxpayers more than it benefits...
"The evidence does not suggest that current immigrant flows cost native-born taxpayers money over the long-run nor does it provide support for the notion that lowering immigration quotas or stepping up enforcement of existing immigration laws would generate savings to existing taxpayers."
http://econofact.org/do-immigrants-cost-native-born-taxpayers-money
I don't know what the solution is. I've always been in favor of militarizing the border, but I am not sure fiscally what that would take. I don't know... its tough, for sure, and without a real economic background my opinion isn't necessarily worth a hill of beans.
The primary system doesn't produce the best candidate----it produces who can and can't win based on who they think the opposition will be. The conservative side knows what kind of coverage they get nationally---and it really is part of the battle. Trump was born of this----people were fed up with the last 8 years, but i don't believe they thought it would be like this. I know a lot of you guys really like obama, but he was pretty divisive----which led to trump. Trump has followed suit. Somebody needs to run as a unifier---but has to do so without alienating obama and trump voters. Trump could have been a BA with his style. But he just cant use it for the right reasons......like ever.
The system is broken b/c we cant control the flow of people. They aren't all bad and serve a very important purpose. Thats why we need to make the process easy as pie to come over and work here so we do know whats going on and the income does get taxed. Use it to the countries benefit as well as provide opportunity
Toonces great posts above.
Thanks for thinking of me and all. But I am seriously done with these threads. They don't provide anything positive to my life and to be honest, they truly are a cancer to a great board. I take full responsibility for my contribution to a lot of the bullshit over the past few years, but I am not going to waste anymore of my time or anybody else's circle talking the same regurgitated topics over and over. We all know where we stand and where the next guy stands. If this makes me a hypocrite, so be it.
So I guess thedude is done pretending to be a moderate/ middle of the road guy?
A healthy chunk of democratic voters are "moderate."
The most recent Gallup poll breaks down the American Ideological Views as:
Conservative: 35%
Liberal: 26%
Moderate: 35%
But, if you take into account the 2016 election, which I think we can all agree is a pretty big sample size, the numbers go up significantly higher for Democrats.
Trump: 46% of the total votes (31.5% increase)
Clinton: 48% of the total votes (84.7% increase)
Now, of course, there are some moderates, people that can sort-of swing either way. But, the reality is "moderates" tend to vote liberal. Just 10 years ago, the percentage of self-identified Conservatives to Liberals was 40% Conservative, 21% Liberal... Yet Obama wins 52% of the votes, whereas McCain gets 47%. Please (Bill Walton voice)! The "moderate" tag that people give themselves, is for the most part a charade. People like to sound balanced, unbiased, and objective... For the most part, I tend to be okay with immigrants in this country (just kick out the criminals). But having a few beliefs that side more with liberals doesn't make me a moderate.
Huh? Where am I not a moderate? There are some things I am more "conservative" about... I literally said, like a page ago, I want to militarize the border, which liberals tend to oppose. I've supported Gitmo and extreme rendition and those sorts of things, which liberals tend to REALLY oppose. I am not so big on "everyone is great at everything and everyone should be equally celebrated" and all of that, which people tend to think is a liberal thing. I do think that certain people should not be obligated to do certain things because of their religious beliefs, which tends to run a bit opposite the modern day liberal take.
There are also things I am more liberal about. I believe that certain industries should not be governed by profit. I believe we need some regulations on business, because the drive for profit can sometimes come at a detriment to Americans.
There are some things I believe that... well, they SHOULD be conservative viewpoints, but in our messed up modern day aren't... like, I don't want my government legislating based on religious rules. I am of a libertarian bent on these things... you can believe what you want, you can not get an abortion or not get gay married... but it is generally not the governments place to legislate morality.
Then there are a few things I support that I don't think SHOULD be a liberal or conservative thing... for example, I tend to take the word of scientists with lifetimes of experience and education in subjects where I have none. For some bizarre reason, that has become politicized.
Like most people, I don't tend to stick with a single party ideology through and through, although I find myself leaning more towards the current liberal point of view than the current conservative one... the dismissal of education and science, the over-reliance on religion, and what I think of as a favoring of business interests over human interests all seem to be important elements of modern conservatism that I do not agree with.
I'm not some ATIFA supporter, or some "Everyone is a spirit who deserves to float in peace" type or someone who things everything can be solved just by hugging each other. Those guys are dicks, everyone isn't a blah blah spirit, and there are some people who just need a JDAM dropped on their head.
I'm also not a religious zealot who is convinced that God, Guns, and The Flag are the only thing that matters. I don't believe in God, I love guns but don't think they are that important, and a symbol like the flag means less to me than the actual actions being taken under it.
I think I do tend to be fairly moderate.
Are you saying I am not moderate because I posted the thoughts of a respected four star general who spent his entire life serving our country, or because I don't support using children as a political bargaining chip, or because I pointed out when a very influential conservative abandoned the GOP...? That can't be it, given that that general was appointed by a conservative, I was posting what a conservative actually said, and many people on all sides don't support using kids as bargaining chips.
I don't get it. What did I say that was so far from the norm? Feel free to quote or whatever, because I am a touch confused.
Last edited:
Good post. Maybe when I think moderate I don't think "capital M" Moderate... I tend to think "moderate" as in "not far left or far right." Maybe people mean more like Moderate?
I think your last week of posting is a sign you need to slow down. Maybe take a few days off from the board. Not trying to be a jerk, I think its getting to you and showing in your posts.
I've always enjoyed your posts, even the ones against my views. You just are out of the norm right now.
I've always enjoyed your posts, even the ones against my views. You just are out of the norm right now.
I'll be honest, I don't get what you are talking about. Was it because I quoted a bunch of Letsgo's posts to make a point while I was pooping? Because I called Fonda a giant douchebag? I have actually been LESS irritated this week than in the past.
Well, okay. Thanks for the feedback I suppose.
A moderate voting Liberal doesn't make them a Liberal, even if they do it on a somewhat regular basis. Say you have a scale from 1-10. 1 = bleeding heart Liberal snowflake, 10 = racist Conservative redneck, 5 = Moderate. 5's don't exist IRL. So, say you're a 6. In a two party system, that probably means you're going to be on the fence for most of the Presidential Race but you would ultimately side with the Republican most of the time, perhaps a lot of the time. After all, as a 6, you have more Conservative beliefs than Liberal ones, so voting that way would make sense. However, people who are a 6 on this scale, just like 4's, probably would not like to be labeled as a Lefty or Righty, and it would probably be inaccurate to lump them into those categories. Running with the idea that 5's aren't real people who really exist, then 4's and 6's are the closest you can get to the middle. If they're not moderates, then there are no moderates.
Our government really would benefit from an extra political party or two, but this is what we're stuck with.
Makes sense. I tend to think of 1-3 and 8-10 on your scale as the not-moderates, and the 4-7ish crowd as moderate. I think I'd be somewhere around a 3.5? Obviously I am a liberal, but a moderate one. Like, there are moderate conservatives too (Huntsman, Kasich). Then you have the far left and far right folks.
When I think of a level headed straight shooting moderate, I think of TheDude1.
I suppose we're all moderate to varying degrees. But I think a true moderate needs to be in the 40-60% range, maybe even 45-55%. I just took one of those silly "how conservative or liberal are you" tests. I'm 72% conservative and 28% liberal. So yes, even I'm moderate in that sense. But I'm never going to pose as a moderate because I think that's a bit disingenuous. That reality is, I'm never going to vote for a Democrat. I can readily admit that. The only other candidates for me to even consider are a Libertarian or an Independent.
I think people love labeling themselves moderate b/c it makes them seem open minded, balanced, and rational. True moderates have to be able to see both sides of arguments and usually find that both have validity depending on the lens you look thru it at. You can also tell how they talk about certain subjects.
I'd be cool with abolishing political parties altogether, personally. Maybe allow the top 4 candidates in the primaries to run in the general election.
But yes, I agree that there are moderates out there. And my post above I even referenced a 40-60% range. But for a very, very long time Democratic candidates have held a majority of the "moderate" votes. My belief is that people who are actually liberal, tend to think of themselves as moderate. I see it as a false positive. Many of these people think of themselves as 40-60%, but I think it's probably more in line with 75-25%. There is no reason why Democratic candidates should consistently have 70% of the "moderate" votes.
People that identify as liberal or conservative have stopped resembling what either label used to mean. Both sides have become experts on degrading the other side more than becoming experts on what they can to make our country better. These two parties spend more time telling us how horrible the opposition is then telling how good their own ideas actually are.
Oh... see, by THAT definition, I WOULD be a moderate. I'm totally able to say "By taking a hard line stance on immigration, while there may be short term difficulties, the long term benefits for the American populace as a whole will be worth it" or "By getting rid of affirmative action you will create a system in which the most qualified and deserving candidates really WILL get the positions they should have, which will be a net positive to the population," or "If you believe that an embryo is actually a human life, than OBVIOUSLY you should do whatever you can to stop abortions." I've always been big on being able to see both sides of an argument... there are only a few that I can't really get, and they are usually religious in nature. That said, I almost always take a SIDE.
Hmmm... sure, I get that. Yeah, I've always taken moderate as being more that you aren't on the fringes of either side, and you have some positions that do not match up with your "more commonly aligned" "side".
Fair enough. I consider you and the 2 that liked your post board gladiators. I tagged you guys because you all know how to bring passion to things. I like everyone I tagged's take (as well as some not tagged). You all are the ones who really bring valid points and help to educate each other.
NO one else annoyed by people writing like THIS?
It comes off as someone trying way too hard.
It comes off as someone trying way too hard.
I am liberal on social issues(most) but conservative on economic issues. So I hate pretty much all politicians we have or will have.
I think true moderates think very similar. But moderates rarely go head over heels with social issues. They recognize the importance and are sympathetic to the causes, but also balance those thoughts with reality and what issues should be the focus when considering running a country. I do believe liberals tend to go overboard with the importance of social issues b/c they are great for discussion/arguement. It stirs the pot. It may sound like I don't place a great importance on them, and thats true. They have their place at the table, but should never take precedence over more serious matters like Homeland security, the economy/taxes, and healthcare. I think by trying to push issues that affect a minute portion of americans to the forefront directly baits the opposition into taking hard stances in which they normally wouldn't----b/c thats what the two parties do best now......battle.
Just another example of the media pushing an agenda b/c its the hot topic in my opinion. This doesn't mean there wasn't a problem, it just is another example of misinformation.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...rder-control-speaks-out/ar-AAyYopn?li=BBnb7Kz
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...rder-control-speaks-out/ar-AAyYopn?li=BBnb7Kz
FYI, I knew the story behind that photo almost immediately after it was circulated, and it's not as if I was looking it up specifically or undertaking any kind of deep dive into it. So the narrative that the information behind that photo wasn't readily available from the get-go would be a false narrative.
Do you have a problem with outlets trying to circulate the photo to represent something it’s not? Not just this issue, but any issue? Where is the integrity in it? Where is the accountability?
I don't like any media outlets intentionally misleading viewers. Any outlets that did that, were wrong to do so because the story behind the photo was available at the same time or very shortly after it was released. On that same token, I'm not sure how widely it was distributed and represented on legitimate news media as an image of a toddler separated from her mother and placed in separate housing. It happened, but the extent to which legitimate news sources pushed that narrative about this specific photo is up for debate.
Social media pushed that narrative more than any other place and social media is not something anybody should be relying on for any kind of facts. I would venture a guess that a lot of media outlets ran with the story because of the photo's viral nature on social media. They might have been reporting moreso on the social media discussion around it than the actual facts of it. That crap bothers me and I wish established news sources would stop jumping on the nonsense that 'trends' on Twitter, or whatever.
Regardless, the photo is powerful and the intent behind its use wasn't sinister. It was used to represent a real crisis, at the very least. Though, as I said, I'm not a fan of news outlets using misleading photos to push a story, no matter the legitimacy of the overall situation that they're commenting on. They had other heartbreaking photos at their disposal that depicted kids really separated from their mothers and crying inconsolably. This kind of thing happens on both sides of the aisle more regularly than it should.
Last edited:
Don't get me wrong, this isn't a lib/con thing. Nor to be a statement about the families being separated ordeal. In general, all media seems to need a metric *uck ton of discipline and accountability. I don't want either "side" to be able to do this crap.
Tongue in cheek......but not so different from reality.
Sure, except for the fact that illegal immigrants pay billions in taxes, many learn English, since 1996 it’s been illegal for illegal immigrants to collect welfare, they cannot vote in nearly any election and there is no evidence of meaningful illegal immigrant voter fraud...
But yeah, good meme.
Huh. Is that the same time it was legal to separate criminal illegals from their children?Sure, except for the fact that illegal immigrants pay billions in taxes, many learn English, since 1996 it’s been illegal for illegal immigrants to collect welfare, they cannot vote in nearly any election and there is no evidence of meaningful illegal immigrant voter fraud...
But yeah, good meme.
That a breitbart interview with a Republican Representative essentially blames everything on Democrats? Eyeroll
I guess that is more surprising than the fact you would post it.
