By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sundin13 said:
JackHandy said:

You don't dilute anything. You just look at what makes sense, regardless of its right or left position, and apply it. That's it. Which, oddly enough, would be exactly what you're calling for: fundamental change. Because when was the last time we had a leader who didn't adhere to his/her party's policies? It's always one or the other. One or the other. You may get the occasional leader or politician who is slightly more moderate, but you never get one who is completely outside the reach of the two, overreaching, fundamental power structures. So if you cherry picked from both, took what worked and threw out the BS, you'd have your change. Hell, you'd have a revolution, actually.

What you are describing is not a moderate and it isn't a centrist. 

I believe that is the issue people have with your statements. It is hard to have a discussion about moderates when you define them so completely outside of what they are in reality, however, again, I do believe it is an interesting demonstration of "Moderate Bias".

Someone touched on it already, sort of. But I think the problem with a person not having an official party or group or whatever you want to call it, is that it creates the illusion of a potential blindspot in their peripheral vision. Because let's face it, if someone runs for office with no label attached, it doesn't matter how amazing his or her ideas are. People are going to be leery, because it's a giant question mark. It's also a lot more work to actually listen to someone instead of simply looking at the little R or D or I under their name. People are conditioned to do that now, and it's not good because the people who are in charge of the R's, D's and I's know it, and a lot of them use it to their advantage to manipulate the masses for their own gain.