Forums - Politics Discussion - What's your definition of a political moderate?

How do you define a political moderate?

Someone who favors only modest changes. 5 20.83%
 
Someone who holds a comb... 19 79.17%
 
Total:24
sundin13 said:
snyps said:

A speech or a commercial is not a record of evidence. He’s a politician. Obama said he’d close quantanamo bay, end the Mid East war, and tie the minimum wage to inflation. Campaign promises are not a predictor. 

They are evidence of intent. Success is a different question entirely, which is largely predicated on Congress. Remember, only Congress can introduce legislation. Sanders ran on the back of Medicare for All, but the odds of that actually getting passed even if he became president would have been very low. I don't know if Biden will be successful in his goals regarding criminal justice, as I don't know what Congress will look like next year, but a crime bill from the 80s does virtually nothing to predict what his stance will be when he becomes president. Any politician who has been on the job for more than a few years will have seen their positions shift over time. That is simply how both humans and politics work.

All I’m saying is records don’t lie, politicians do. There’s no reason to believe a liar has changed. They will say what is popular. If you want more recent records, look at Biden’s VP pick. Harris, a state prosecutor of all things, opposed legalization of marijuana in her state. She co-authored an opposition letter to stop it’s passage, and was successful. 2016 it finally passed without her endorsement. Records show, in her 5 years, Harris sent 1,500 people to state prison (not just jail) for MariJuana related offenses and increased drug dealer convictions from 50% to 75%. Now she created the MORE act. Which I have to read still, but it could be a step in the right direction. 

when I see a police turn it’s lights on I don’t think, “oh good, they caught a bad guy.” Instead I think, “Oh those poor people are being extorted for money.”



Around the Network
snyps said:
sundin13 said:

They are evidence of intent. Success is a different question entirely, which is largely predicated on Congress. Remember, only Congress can introduce legislation. Sanders ran on the back of Medicare for All, but the odds of that actually getting passed even if he became president would have been very low. I don't know if Biden will be successful in his goals regarding criminal justice, as I don't know what Congress will look like next year, but a crime bill from the 80s does virtually nothing to predict what his stance will be when he becomes president. Any politician who has been on the job for more than a few years will have seen their positions shift over time. That is simply how both humans and politics work.

All I’m saying is records don’t lie, politicians do. There’s no reason to believe a liar has changed. They will say what is popular. If you want more recent records, look at Biden’s VP pick. Harris, a state prosecutor of all things, opposed legalization of marijuana in her state. She co-authored an opposition letter to stop it’s passage, and was successful. 2016 it finally passed without her endorsement. Records show, in her 5 years, Harris sent 1,500 people to state prison (not just jail) for MariJuana related offenses and increased drug dealer convictions from 50% to 75%. Now she created the MORE act. Which I have to read still, but it could be a step in the right direction. 

when I see a police turn it’s lights on I don’t think, “oh good, they caught a bad guy.” Instead I think, “Oh those poor people are being extorted for money.”

Records do lie, if you are using them to assume the future. Harris is a good example of that.

Harris sponsored the Senate version of a bill which would deschedule marijuana and expunge federal convictions, came out in favor of legalization in 2018 and signed/sponsored several bills following through on that. She has repeatedly called for the legalization of marijuana and her record over the last several years is consistent with that position.

If you stood up in 2018 and said that Harris' past would predict her future, you would be dead wrong.



sundin13 said:
snyps said:

All I’m saying is records don’t lie, politicians do. There’s no reason to believe a liar has changed. They will say what is popular. If you want more recent records, look at Biden’s VP pick. Harris, a state prosecutor of all things, opposed legalization of marijuana in her state. She co-authored an opposition letter to stop it’s passage, and was successful. 2016 it finally passed without her endorsement. Records show, in her 5 years, Harris sent 1,500 people to state prison (not just jail) for MariJuana related offenses and increased drug dealer convictions from 50% to 75%. Now she created the MORE act. Which I have to read still, but it could be a step in the right direction. 

when I see a police turn it’s lights on I don’t think, “oh good, they caught a bad guy.” Instead I think, “Oh those poor people are being extorted for money.”

Records do lie, if you are using them to assume the future. Harris is a good example of that.

Harris sponsored the Senate version of a bill which would deschedule marijuana and expunge federal convictions, came out in favor of legalization in 2018 and signed/sponsored several bills following through on that. She has repeatedly called for the legalization of marijuana and her record over the last several years is consistent with that position.

If you stood up in 2018 and said that Harris' past would predict her future, you would be dead wrong.

She changed sides after California turned against her. She switched sides on the issue because of popularity not conviction. Decriminalization is not a price of her moral fiber. She is just doing what politicians do, trying to be electable.



snyps said:
sundin13 said:

Records do lie, if you are using them to assume the future. Harris is a good example of that.

Harris sponsored the Senate version of a bill which would deschedule marijuana and expunge federal convictions, came out in favor of legalization in 2018 and signed/sponsored several bills following through on that. She has repeatedly called for the legalization of marijuana and her record over the last several years is consistent with that position.

If you stood up in 2018 and said that Harris' past would predict her future, you would be dead wrong.

She changed sides after California turned against her. She switched sides on the issue because of popularity not conviction. Decriminalization is not a price of her moral fiber. She is just doing what politicians do, trying to be electable.

...yeah, exactly.

That was kind of my point. I honestly don't care if it is based on "conviction". Both Biden and Kamala changed positions on numerous issues. That's all that really matters. Like you said, politicians try to be electable (remember when I said early that changing positions was natural for politicians?). As such, I don't understand the assumption that they will sabotage that electability and go "ha, jk" as soon as they take power.



Locknuts said:
Tim Pool

Exactly my thoughts. The left went so crazy that the guy is about to change his beanie to a maga hat.

For myself, I would be considered center left 10 years ago. My opinions didnt change and to be fair from an economics point of view my opinion even went a little bit to the left. 

But now 10 years later, same person an opinions, Im considered an alt right biggot.



Around the Network
sundin13 said:
snyps said:

She changed sides after California turned against her. She switched sides on the issue because of popularity not conviction. Decriminalization is not a price of her moral fiber. She is just doing what politicians do, trying to be electable.

...yeah, exactly.

That was kind of my point. I honestly don't care if it is based on "conviction". Both Biden and Kamala changed positions on numerous issues. That's all that really matters. Like you said, politicians try to be electable (remember when I said early that changing positions was natural for politicians?). As such, I don't understand the assumption that they will sabotage that electability and go "ha, jk" as soon as they take power.

If that’s all you’re looking for, that’s great. That doesn’t do it for me. I want a leader who is dedicated to the principle of liberty, not control. A person who says what you want to hear just wants control. 



snyps said:
sundin13 said:

...yeah, exactly.

That was kind of my point. I honestly don't care if it is based on "conviction". Both Biden and Kamala changed positions on numerous issues. That's all that really matters. Like you said, politicians try to be electable (remember when I said early that changing positions was natural for politicians?). As such, I don't understand the assumption that they will sabotage that electability and go "ha, jk" as soon as they take power.

If that’s all you’re looking for, that’s great. That doesn’t do it for me. I want a leader who is dedicated to the principle of liberty, not control. A person who says what you want to hear just wants control. 

Primaries are for shooting your shot on the candidate you like. I took my shot on the candidate I liked, but what I got is Biden. Now I have two choices and only two choices, no matter how I feel about that: Biden and Trump.

That choice should be simple if your ideal candidate is someone to the left of Biden.

And if you decide not to make a choice, that isn't a noble act of rebellion or anything like that, it is simply you empowering the status quo.



sundin13 said:
snyps said:

If that’s all you’re looking for, that’s great. That doesn’t do it for me. I want a leader who is dedicated to the principle of liberty, not control. A person who says what you want to hear just wants control. 

Primaries are for shooting your shot on the candidate you like. I took my shot on the candidate I liked, but what I got is Biden. Now I have two choices and only two choices, no matter how I feel about that: Biden and Trump.

That choice should be simple if your ideal candidate is someone to the left of Biden.

And if you decide not to make a choice, that isn't a noble act of rebellion or anything like that, it is simply you empowering the status quo.

I am voting, not for the red/blue party. 



snyps said:
sundin13 said:

Primaries are for shooting your shot on the candidate you like. I took my shot on the candidate I liked, but what I got is Biden. Now I have two choices and only two choices, no matter how I feel about that: Biden and Trump.

That choice should be simple if your ideal candidate is someone to the left of Biden.

And if you decide not to make a choice, that isn't a noble act of rebellion or anything like that, it is simply you empowering the status quo.

I am voting, not for the red/blue party. 

Voting third party is functionally no different than not voting (assuming you are in a state where your vote matters).



sundin13 said:
snyps said:

I am voting, not for the red/blue party. 

Voting third party is functionally no different than not voting (assuming you are in a state where your vote matters).

If you spend your vote on a candidate who truly has the nation’s best interest in mind, who will actively bring real, positive, Constitutional change, and who adequately represents the ideals for which you stand, then you have not wasted your vote but rather invested it. I have no common ground with Biden or Trump, that’d be the real wasted vote imo. Edit: The binary choice wants to fight endless wars, make decisions for me, and increase spending. 

Last edited by snyps - on 16 August 2020