How about a presidential debate for Moderates?

Whether they are Dems or Reps, most all of them are heavily biased towards their respective political party. IMO those who are extreme in either political camp, in other words the 'far left' and far right', not only will make horrible presidents but aren't even good presidential candidate material! What can possibly be a reason for the USA to consider any presidential candidate with extreme political bias?

I call them 'moderates' and not 'independents' because 99% of the time an 'independent' has bias towards one of the two primary political parties. A true 'moderate' is supposed to be non-partisan, non-extreme, non-radical, more towards the 'middle'. Logic says in order to be in the political 'middle' the candidate probably has an open mind, more interest in doing what makes true sense, more interest in compromising, more interest in actually finding solutions to our myriad problems. IMO these 'moderates' won't have clearly defined positions on things like immigration, military, etc. but will prefer not only a political hybrid solution but solutions which are truly in the best interest of the collective USA.

Lastly, I know presidential candidates believe they are representing 'Americans' and we hear Obama and candidates always saying 'Americans want...' which it total BS. Some Americans want abortion and some Americans don't want abortion so candidates will pander to both of these positions with zero empathy or concern for the women who find themselves considering abortion. Using abortion as an example, it is absurd that a political party, or a president, or anyone!, can be dictating to ALL women what they can and cannot do regarding abortion. The obvious policy is to allow women to make their own choice and have regulations for abortion procedures and consent for those under legal age. But idiot voters cannot do this because all they care about are their very extreme and stubborn positions on all issues.

It is this voter stupidity which presents us with unqualified and laughable presidential candidates...

 

Seems to me that the only thing we get from moderates, of either party, is more socialism and debt. Why must compromise always move towards more government and less freedom?

 

Not interested in moderates 'from either party'. My point is if we cannot elect an open-mined unbiased centrist moderate as president then we will continue down the same path we're on today. But I know about reality of the two-party system and the idiot voters who choose their sides who are incapable of voting for such a person.

A true moderate is not going to represent 'more socialism and debt'?? They are going to be open-minded, unbiased, and try to do what's in the best interest of the collective nation.

BTW: real compromise moves in all directions...

 

I know of no one except myself that is truly in favor of balanced budgets and constitutional government. Only I want SS/Medicare abolished, welfare abolished and any other forms of forced redistribution. We will never have balanced budgets and constitutional government until enough Americans agree that an individual's personal needs/wants for food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education and incomes are not federal duties.

I see zero evidence that compromise has worked towards constitutionality. We are clearly on path to a socialist police state.

 

The US Constitution is fundamental law. It's not possible to use a literal translation from 200+ years ago and apply it to today without amendments and interpretation. The Constitution has been greatly flawed but corrected by amendments as modern times and issues present themselves. It is today a nearly impossible task to amend the Constitution so we can assume there will be more interpretation. However, the courts are required to uphold these laws and make sure nothing is in conflict with these laws. It's an extremely complex system but it seems to serve the intent of today's government and citizenry.

I'd like to see balanced budgets but not overnight...put an irrevocable plan in place to achieve it within 5-10 years.

It's absurd to abolish SS/Medicare unless you have something 'better' to replace it.

It's absurd to abolish welfare when it's a fact that millions of Americans need various forms of assistance.

If you think the nation, or the government, or it's citizenry should care about the general welfare of the nation and it's citizenry, then it is required that government be concerned about food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education, etc.

We don't have compromise and/or do what's in the best interest of the nation because like you, too many Americans are hell bent on what 'they' demand rather than what's actually in the best interest of the nation. If 80 million Americans need some food assistance...this cannot be ignored!

Don't know what path we are on but as long as the voters are incapable of voting for the 'best possible candidates'...we will continue with the status quo...

 

So which of the current candidates did you vote to be candidates?

 

Of the 20 or so Rep and Dem candidates I have no use for at least 18 of them. But I'll bet the worst of the lot will be voted into office and nothing will change. The entire concept of being a US president is stupid! First, it's a 24/7 thankless job which pays a pathetic wage. Your life, your family's life, your friend's lives, and your business life are scrutinized poked and prodded. It requires ass-kissing to generate $500 million to fund the campaign. The president must deal with 565 Congressional idiots. What makes running for president stupid is WHO in their right mind, with great qualifications, who actually knows what needs to be done, and how to get it done, will run for president?? The best and the brightest are smart enough to avoid the presidential (*)(*)(*)(*)-hole! So voters are left culling through mostly unqualified candidates, then vote ONLY for the candidate of their party, with almost zero knowledge about who might be the VP. IMO there is no possible way for this current system to present the US with the best possible presidential candidates...

 

The answer is primaries. They're trying to win the primary and so there's no reason to get out of the political mold. Even if primaries were open it would require people to be interested in voting for candidates vs. the parties. That requires people to become informed about the candidates vs. the parties. That's pretty hard to do.

 

Good lord.

You don't vote for someone to be a candidate.

 

Moderates would create a country where only illegal immigrants can own guns, and you can only do abortions if your child is straight.

 

"Moderates" are some of the dumbest people on the planet.

Me typing the above sentence out just gave "moderates" more attention than they deserve.

 

The problem with this idea of a debate for moderates is that moderates have no ideals or principles. Without a principle, how can somebody say "I believe in X!" and then argue from that principle?

They can't because they have no principles. There is no moderate political philosophy. There are no ghandis or thoreauxs amongst moderates because moderates don't have any beliefs that they are willing to take a stand on.

 

Hard to do...it's a joke! It's almost an oxymoron!

 

IMO it's great to have no agenda...this means an open-mind, it means compromising, it means doing what's best for the USA, it means consensus on the root issues. This was my point exactly! I don't want candidates who are molded to one party or the other...these are brain-dead parrots. I want candidates who start from scratch on every issue, understand what's best for the nation, and create legislation to move forward...

 

What would the constitution be like if it had been written by one of these open-minded types? There wouldn't be a reason to have a tripartate form of government, or checks and balances because that requires thinking of the government as an inherent danger to the people. That close-minded nonsense is bigoted, and you'll have none of that!

You should stop thinking of people who have ideals as "brain-dead parrots". Think of them more as doctors that aren't going to suggest going to a faith healer to set a broken bone. They're just not all that open-minded about the possible benefts of the laying on of hands from some (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) in a preacher robe.

When you learned your trade, did that education require thinking a certain way? If you're a carpenter, you might know that hammers are for hammering and saws are for sawing. That is closing your mind to the possibility of framing a house with a tape measure. Are we really that bigoted against the construction possibilities of a tape measure that we would laugh at a crew who showed up with nothing but tape measures to a barn raising?

I certainly am. But then I'm a close-minded idiot.

 

I'm not going to debate with you the pros and cons of being open-minded or closed-minded. Only an open-minded person can understand that framing a house might not require hammers and saws! Open-mindedness allows people to think outside of closed-minded and biased positions.

Ideals are personal and are great to serve that person but should never be forced onto others...we do not need more ideology in government...we need open-minded, unbiased, creative thinking to actually solve complex problems. If average global temperatures are increasing, for example, and they might increase by x degrees in y time, what is the outcome of this warming? If outcomes are negative or unacceptable, wherever mankind can effect something which will improve upon these outcomes, we must consider these actions. Only an open-minded person can accept this process! The closed-minded and biased person will argue everything except for the actual root issue at hand...

 

Well yeah, back when I worked as a carpenter we could have framed a house using different tools and methodologies but they wouldn't have been as time or cost effective and so we would have lost buckets of money in comparison to crews who did it the old fashioned time tested way. Meh . . . go figure. Sometimes an open mind is open because it's not moderated by a sufficient amount of common sense.

 

Like the national debt?

Ahh... good ol' global warming.

Okay, let's take an unbiased, creative and open-minded look at this theoretical problem. The idea is to lower the various green house gasses in the atmosphere to the point that the earth's global temperature is stabilized.

What is an effective tool to accomplish this goal?

 

And thus why we can't have nice things.

 

Interior metal framing was a paradigm shift from traditional wood and hammer and nail construction. Pneumatic nail drivers are a paradigm shift from hammers. The use of screws instead of nails was a paradigm shift. All of these new technologies require an open mind...

 

What does national debt have to do with having an open mind?? The national debt is determined by 'need', by 'politics', and by 'math'. No matter people's needs or ideologies or bias, the math of debt which gives us ratios to income and ratios to spending, the nation will no longer be able to afford the annual debt interest payment. If we have a national emergency, we will increase debt. If politics requires more debt for whatever reason we will increase debt. If voters refuse to pay down debt we will sustain the debt.

I'm not going to discuss global warming on this thread! The point was as we have issues, with an open mind to ALL possible solutions, we must collectively do what's in the best interest of the USA...not what's in the best interest of the few...

 

This is why my auto signature says; Did you know both our problems and the solutions can be found simply by looking in our mirrors?

Problem is, most people look in their mirrors and can only think about what's best for them when instead we need more people thinking what's in the best interest of the nation and how can I help...

 

. . . and comparative time and cost analysis. Something can be cheaper and yet take more time than is ideal in an economically competitive environment or something can be faster and yet cost more money than is ideal in an economically competitive environment. There are circumstances where regionally something can be cheaper and faster in one place but violate one or both of the categories in other regions and do so to the extent that it's just not feasible to switch over.

Mostly the open-minded stuff happens by baby steps and occurs because somebody got their hands on a neat new gadget or material and begins trying it out for a few years and then competitors also begin trying it out and then a trickle becomes an avalanche; but it is also a phenomenon that can be shut down at any stage if one of the economic factor no-no issues come into play.

 

Another sign that we've lost sight of what matters the most- community. We've lost our sense of community and we need to get it back.

 

To have an open mind you must allow all the options, all the reasons, why to consider change. Regarding metal framing, it's not necessarily about costs or speed, but might be about fire resistant materials, a greener alternative, metal lasting longer, conserving natural resources, earthquake design, no termite issues, less weight, not warped or flawed, etc.

Being open minded allows people to consider so much more than exists in their tiny and personal sphere...