Independent/Third Party 2020 Presidential Candidate "Mega"thread

[bad_teammate 13225]

1 hour ago, happyfunball said:

 

 

This is what I call The Anastasis Paradox

What happens when your political self-identity is that you are the lone voice of centrist reason between two crazy groups, but the reality is that only one of the groups is actually crazy?

Some options:

(1) acknowledge this reality and "join" the not-crazy side
benefit: It's honest and might actually help the world.
problem: It requires self-critique and self-analysis. Might have to admit being wrong.

(2) stop paying attention to politics and stop talking about politics
benefit: No need to eat any crow or grow/change as a person.
problem: How will people know how reasonable you are?

(3) pretend that the not-crazy side is actually crazy
benefit: No need to change the way you think/talk about politics.
problem: It's an obvious lie and everyone will mock you for lying.

Schultz has chosen Option #3.

Edited January 31, 2019 by bad_teammate

[F250 28826]

52 minutes ago, happyfunball said:

 

 

This part of the article seems a bit silly. "But now that we know that Schultz is attacking Democrats far more often for self-interested strategic reasons, this whole argument has now been blown to smithereens from the inside."

All political actors attack opponents for self-interested strategic reasons.

[happyfunball 481]

1 minute ago, F250 said:

This part of the article seems a bit silly. "But now that we know that Schultz is attacking Democrats far more often for self-interested strategic reasons, this whole argument has now been blown to smithereens from the inside."

All political actors attack opponents for self-interested strategic reasons.

Shutlz is only considering to run to scare Dems to select a moderate as the candidate. He is proving that he isn't a democrat and only wants to move the conversation to the right even though majority of Americans support Dems' policy proposals. 

[Js1 85602]

6 minutes ago, happyfunball said:

Shutlz is only considering to run to scare Dems to select a moderate as the candidate. He is proving that he isn't a democrat and only wants to move the conversation to the right even though majority of Americans support Dems' policy proposals. 

So he is literally the useful idiot the "Republicans without a home" decided to use to move the Democratic Party more in line with THEIR beliefs so they can stomach voting for the Democrat.  Or else they'll just be forced to vote for Trump again because "the crazy far-left Democrat wasn't palpable to me"

[bad_teammate 13225]

Cookie, also, chooses #3.

[F250 28826]

2 minutes ago, happyfunball said:

Shutlz is only considering to run to scare Dems to select a moderate as the candidate. He is proving that he isn't a democrat and only wants to move the conversation to the right even though majority of Americans support Dems' policy proposals. 

Yeah, that is how the game is played. The guy is the political embodiment of Judge Smails, did anyone really think he represented Dems? He is a country club Republican.

[Cajun 11750]

Oh, I know a shit-load of Dems personally who used to think that butter didn't melt in Shultz's mouth up until a few days ago.

Don't kid yourself.

[WhatTheBuck 28806]

12 minutes ago, Js1 said:

So he is literally the useful idiot the "Republicans without a home" decided to use to move the Democratic Party more in line with THEIR beliefs so they can stomach voting for the Democrat.  Or else they'll just be forced to vote for Trump again because "the crazy far-left Democrat wasn't palpable to me"

If that's what they wanted then they should've voted for Hillary. 

[Chuckie Finster 22752]

10 minutes ago, Cajun said:

Oh, I know a shit-load of Dems personally who used to think that butter didn't melt in Shultz's mouth up until a few days ago.

Don't kid yourself.

Did you hear this in a hipster coffee shop?

[Cajun 11750]

5 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

bad_teammate should really start a political think tank and consulting practice. This guy has it figured out lol

[Cajun 11750]

2 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Did you hear this in a hipster coffee shop?

[F250 28826]

8 minutes ago, Js1 said:

So he is literally the useful idiot the "Republicans without a home" decided to use to move the Democratic Party more in line with THEIR beliefs so they can stomach voting for the Democrat.  Or else they'll just be forced to vote for Trump again because "the crazy far-left Democrat wasn't palpable to me"

Seems like it would have been easier and more effective to just pour a bunch of money behind a centrist Democratic candidate. If there really are enough influential "Republicans without a home" there is nothing to stop them from moving into the D tent and setting up shop.

[Jhawk 1075]

1 hour ago, SimonBolivar said:

and their GDP is 2.58T to our 19.39T.

 

per person France is at $38,476 and US is at $59,531

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD

Our GDP is 7.5x greater than theirs.  This is true.  But we tax on everything but GDP (btw, I would love to just tax anything that contributes to GDP by 15% and kill all other taxes, no loopholes).  If you're talking about HOW to pay for something then GDP doesn't really matter.

From www.healthdata.org, I see that France spends aobut $4,741 per person on healthcare.  The US spends $9,839 per person (2017).  Why are we spending so much more?  If the argument is that we can do socialized medicine because France can then why don't we have better results than France?  France's overall obesity rate is 19.8%.  At a population of 65M they have 12.87M people that are obese.  The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is estimating that about 41% of the US's total population will be obese BY 2020. At 325M people that means we have 133.25M people who either are slated to, or already have, health problems.  The cost of obesity in America is estimated at $147Billion by the CDC.  That means the cost of obesity in America is half of France's entire spending on healthcare.

That is representative of just one problem in the US that makes M4A completely unaffordable and why the US cannot be compared to France at all.  If we were as healthy as a population as France then we can start to compare the two, but we aren't so we can't.  We have problems that will be EXPONENTIAL contributors to our costs over what france has.

The biggest focus should be on getting people healthy, not treating ailments over and over again.  We can stop certain forms of diabetes by losing weight.  We can eliminate certain surgeries (orthopedic and gastro) by being healthy and losing weight.  We can slow the biggest killer of our citizens in heart disease by being healthy and losing weight.  None of that requires a doc or medicare for all.  It requires looking in the mirror and assigning guilt to the only person who is responsible for their own body.  Let's look there before we talk about how some incredibly healthy country does better in healthcare than us.

Edited January 31, 2019 by Jhawk

[Js1 85602]

29 minutes ago, F250 said:

Seems like it would have been easier and more effective to just pour a bunch of money behind a centrist Democratic candidate. If there really are enough influential "Republicans without a home" there is nothing to stop them from moving into the D tent and setting up shop.

Oh they clearly don't mind Trump winning again so they can go "SEE! YOU'RE TOO FAR LEFT FOR AMERICA! You have to moderate if you want us to vote for you!"

They know, in this moment, they won't have a voice in the Democratic Party. 

[bad_teammate 13225]

Just now, Js1 said:

Oh they clearly don't mind Trump winning again so they can go "SEE! YOU'RE TOO FAR LEFT FOR AMERICA! You have to moderate if you want us to vote for you!"

They know, in this moment, they won't have a voice in the Democratic Party. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The Schultz play is interesting but I think the motivation is to pull both the Republicans and Democrats to what we used to call the center. 

I don’t think it will work but it’s an interesting strategy. 

[SimonBolivar 10960]

24 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

Our GDP is 7.5x greater than theirs.  This is true.  But we tax on everything but GDP (btw, I would love to just tax anything that contributes to GDP by 15% and kill all other taxes, no loopholes).  If you're talking about HOW to pay for something then GDP doesn't really matter.

From www.healthdata.org, I see that France spends aobut $4,741 per person on healthcare.  The US spends $9,839 per person (2017).  Why are we spending so much more?  If the argument is that we can do socialized medicine because France can then why don't we have better results than France?  France's overall obesity rate is 19.8%.  At a population of 65M they have 12.87M people that are obese.  The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is estimating that about 41% of the US's total population will be obese BY 2020. At 325M people that means we have 133.25M people who either are slated to, or already have, health problems.  The cost of obesity in America is estimated at $147Billion by the CDC.  That means the cost of obesity in America is half of France's entire spending on healthcare.

That is representative of just one problem in the US that makes M4A completely unaffordable and why the US cannot be compared to France at all.  If we were as healthy as a population as France then we can start to compare the two, but we aren't so we can't.  We have problems that will be EXPONENTIAL contributors to our costs over what france has.

The biggest focus should be on getting people healthy, not treating ailments over and over again.  We can stop certain forms of diabetes by losing weight.  We can eliminate certain surgeries (orthopedic and gastro) by being healthy and losing weight.  We can slow the biggest killer of our citizens in heart disease by being healthy and losing weight.  None of that requires a doc or medicare for all.  It requires looking in the mirror and assigning guilt to the only person who is responsible for their own body.  Let's look there before we talk about how some incredibly healthy country does better in healthcare than us.

On the obesity side do you have any idea how we can focus on getting people healthy? I would assume access to preventative healthcare would help, but I haven't seen any numbers to back that up. It feels to me that it's a more of a culture problem/phenomenon and I don't see any political will to change our current path in the obesity crisis. What other factors increase our per person spending besides obesity? The UK is only behind us in lardlandia by about 10% and they spend less than half what we do per person on healthcare. I know you talked about it being an exponential problem but does an extra 10% of the population being obese grow costs by 50%?

 

Health consumption expenditures per capita, U.S. dollars, PPP adjusted, 2017

United States

$10,224

Switzerland

$8,009

Germany

$5,728

Sweden

$5,511

Austria

$5,440

Netherlands

$5,386

Comparable Country Average

$5,280

France

$4,902

Canada

$4,826

Belgium

$4,774

Japan

$4,717

Australia

$4,543

United Kingdom

$4,246

[bad_teammate 13225]

49 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The Schultz play is interesting but I think the motivation is to pull both the Republicans and Democrats to what we used to call the center. 

it is a myth now and it has always been a myth

[tantric superman 4668]

I think the key is that in France you go to hospice pretty quickly and then they let you die with some dignity, unlike here where we keep everyone alive too long.

 

[bolverk 29729]

3 hours ago, Anastasis said:

That makes no sense. You are saying that half of our healthcare expenditures are administrative costs? We have a very inefficient system, but the drivers of expenditures are 1) Hospitals 2) Pharma 3) Providers. Admin including both government and private insurers is mid single digits.  Administrative inefficiencies need to be addressed. I am not sure that more government has ever been the solution to inefficiency, but maybe this time would be different. If you really want to impact NHE you have to address pharma and hospitals.  Pharma margins are stupid.  Hospital billing practices are totally nonsensical. Provider reimbursement needs to be fundamentally reshaped towards outcomes and away from FFS. What we need is a fundamental realignment of incentives across the board. I think that some legislative solutions may be necessary and beneficial, and that the reality is that administrative costs will likely increase as a percent of NHE in the short and medium term. You are not going to fundamentally reshape healthcare in this country without administrative outlays. And that is OK, not all administrative costs are created equal.  Some represent a good ROI, others do not. We need more of the former, less of the latter.

 

 

The following is spending figures are from the OECD for 2015 (the latest year for which data can be broken out for all countries most of the different categories listed) using Purchase Price Parity (I've bolded out the areas where the US seems to differ most from the others):

Share of Healthcare Spending:

			US		Canada	France	Germany	UK
Current Expenditure on Health (all functions)			100.0%		100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
	Curative & Rehabilitative Care		64.5%		52.1%	53.2%	51.3%	56.9%
		Inpatient Curative	17.0%		16.0%	27.8%	27.3%	23.6%
		Day Curative	NA		5.7%	4.0%	0.7%	4.9%
		Outpatient	44.6%		30.2%	17.9%	22.3%	25.6%
		Home-based	2.9%		0.1%	3.5%	0.6%	2.7%
	Long-term		5.2%		14.2%	14.9%	16.2%	18.3%
	Ancillary Services		NA		3.3%	5.2%	4.7%	1.8%
	Medical Goods		14.2%		20.2%	19.2%	20.0%	14.3%
	Preventative Care		2.9%		6.2%	1.8%	3.0%	5.3%
	Governance and health system and financing administration		8.2%		2.8%	5.7%	4.8%	2.2%

 

Healthcare Spending per Capita (2015 & 2017) PPP:

	US		Canada	France	Germany	UK
Per capita, 2015, PPP	$        8,733		$    4,505	$    4,328	$    4,328	$    4,957
Per capita, 2017, PPP	$        9,111		$    4,404	$    4,242	$    4,723	$    4,723
Change in per capita spending	+4.3%		-2.2%	-2.0%	+9.1%	-4.7%

 

Dollar amount in spending in the US versus peers (2015):

			AVERAGE		Canada	France	Germany	UK
Current Expenditure on Health (all functions)			+$4,204		+$4,228	+$4,405	+$4,405	+$3,776
	Curative & Rehabilitative Care		+$3,210		+$3,286	+$3,330	+$3,412	+$2,812
		Inpatient Curative	+$416		+$764	+$281	+$303	+$315
		Day Curative	NA		NA	NA	NA	NA
		Outpatient	+$2,803		$2,534	$3,120	$2,930	$2,626
		Home-based	+$174		+$249	+$102	+$227	+$119
	Long-term		-$269		-$186	-$191	-$247	-$453
	Ancillary Services		NA		NA	NA	NA	NA
	Medical Goods		+$411		+$330	+$409	+$374	+$531
	Preventative Care		+$66		-$26	+$175	+$123	-$9
	Governance and health system and financing administration		+$544		+$590	+$469	+$508	+$607

 

Bottom line, Americans are getting raked over the coals in almost all categories. Mea culpa on misremembering that the biggest difference in spending was administrative costs but on that alone, it looks like we outspend peers by more than $500 per head per year.

Now, you all who work in the field, tell me what the fuck is going on with our outpatient expenses? That looks like where we're really getting screwed.

If anyone would like to check my math, feel free. All the data can be found in these tables:

https://stats.oecd.org/viewhtml.aspx?datasetcode=SHA&lang=en

(Yes, I realize this thread isn't the healthcare one. I'm done participating with derailing the 3rd party candidate topic.)

 

 

 

[Jhawk 1075]

1 minute ago, SimonBolivar said:

On the obesity side do you have any idea how we can focus on getting people healthy? I would assume access to preventative healthcare would help, but I haven't seen any numbers to back that up. It feels to me that it's a more of a culture problem/phenomenon and I don't see any political will to change our current path in the obesity crisis. What other factors increase our per person spending besides obesity? The UK is only behind us in lardlandia by about 10% and they spend less than half what we do per person on healthcare. I know you talked about it being an exponential problem but does an extra 10% of the population being obese grow costs by 50%?

 

The bold sentence is 100% the issue.  People are throwing out single payer and M4A like it is going to stop the rising tide of costs.  NO.  UNEQUIVOCALLY NO.  Someone who is going to have 4 heart attacks isn't going to prevent that in any other way than taking care of themselves at home.  We also have to better define "Preventative" in our culture.  Preventative isn't going to the doctor and getting anxiety medicine so you can prevent your anxiety attacks during normal social interactions.  Preventative is seeking the root of your problems, on your own, and working to better yourself as a person and address your issues so you can lead a happy and interventionist free life.  

As a country we have decided that it is better to blame our problems on someone else and when we don't do that we never look to ourselves for answers.  Our first instinct is "this isn't my fault" and our second instinct is "who can fix this for me".  If everyone would take it upon themselves to eat healthy and lead a less than sedentary lifestyle then obesity rates would fall.

Regarding my use of the word "exponential", it is an exponential problem because of CULTURE.  OECD predicts that at least 75% of our population will be at least "overweight" by 2020.  That includes obesity.  Overweight and Obese people are having kids and getting older.  Their kids are being indoctrinated into "fat is fine" and 75% will grow to 85% in a generation.  As these people age we will only have a growing cost problem because age is a SLOW killer of fat people and there is almost nothing we can do about it medically.  The mortality rate of obese people between the age of 40 and 84 has declined at a fraction of the rate of a healthy person.  No medical advances are helping those people live full healthy lives, but they are living slightly longer.  I would argue that them living longer but not keeping pace with the healthy population means that we are using more resources to keep them alive.  Another drain on the greater system.

Finally, to address political issues, politicians want us to hand over the decision making to them.  They don't want a healthy and stable population.  They want control.  Repubs, dems, doesn't matter.  A population that gives the reigns to their leaders is a population that is dependent on their leaders.  Notice I'm not saying government, I'm saying leaders.  There is a reason why our government has something like a 95% retention rate and a 18% approval rate.  No health care system is going to cure our problems.  Show me one major problem that has been cured since Hilldawg started chirping about healthcare reform in 1992.  The system isn't about making people healthy it's about making them quiet so they are willing to give up more control over their lives. 

Looking to politicians to change the path is the absolute worst thing we can do, but they have convinced us it is the only way.  Look across the aisle from your perspective..  You think trump or AOC or Booker or Bush or Rove or Gore or Kerry or Mitt is a blithering idiot?  You're right!  So why the hell would we look to a group of 536 blithering idiots to make us healthier?  Look in the mirror.  Or fuck, go to the thread on this site about weight loss and look at the champions who are changing their life right before our eyes.  Not one politician is encouraging them or telling them to get it together because they're costing a billionaire money.  They are doing it on their own like the true fucking hero of their life.

[bolverk 29729]

7 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I think the key is that in France you go to hospice pretty quickly and then they let you die with some dignity, unlike here where we keep everyone alive too long.

 

I'm guessing that would fall under long-term care, but I have no idea. Check the categories in my above post.

Edited January 31, 2019 by bolverk
Could also fall under outpatient maybe...I dunno. I'm not a doctor.

[WhatTheBuck 28806]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

it is a myth now and it has always been a myth

Just because you can't see the center from where you're standing doesn't mean it's not there. 

[Jhawk 1075]

6 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I think the key is that in France you go to hospice pretty quickly and then they let you die with some dignity, unlike here where we keep everyone alive too long.

 

Life expectancy in france is about 4 years higher than the USA as well.  They either have absolute miracle workers for doctors... OR.... they don't sedate their population, encourage them to run to the ER over a cold, feed their people the absolute worst shit in the world, and encourage their people to be a stay at home slob 24/7.

France is doing a ton of things right.  None of it has to do with the question "who is going to pay for healthcare?"

Edited January 31, 2019 by Jhawk

[babysdaddy 2728]

I think we have an obesity issue because some fuck head figured out a way to get people to drink frozen mocha frappacinos with extra caramel every day.  We should find that guy and burn him at the stake.

 

[bolverk 29729]

Yeah, there could be a whole other discussion about the feds deciding to subsidize high fructose corn syrup in the early 80s and it replacing sugar, which just happens to have coincided with the beginning of high obesity rates in teh US.

[SimonBolivar 10960]

4 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Yeah, there could be a whole other discussion about the feds deciding to subsidize high fructose corn syrup in the early 80s and it replacing sugar, which just happens to have coincided with the beginning of high obesity rates in teh US.

I think more important wasn't the replacing of sugar with other sugar (HFCS), but rather replacing fat with sugar.

[WhatTheBuck 28806]

2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Yeah, there could be a whole other discussion about the feds deciding to subsidize high fructose corn syrup in the early 80s and it replacing sugar, which just happens to have coincided with the beginning of high obesity rates in teh US.

I think that was a just a logical result of corn subsidies that already existed but the point still stands. HFCS is a huge problem, no pun intended. Big Sugar is a problem too. Any sound dietary advice that would negatively impact an industry's bottom line is going to have a huge pushback with a lot of money going to defeat politicians who favor public vs. corporate interests. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

31 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

it is a myth now and it has always been a myth

There’s some truth to this but the myth is what held the country together for a long time.  

Like the cream of an Oreo gluing two cookies together.

Without it, everything falls apart.  

[Jhawk 1075]

Sorry for getting the thread off track with the health stuff.  Anyone who looks to other countries to solve our problems is only part of the problem.

Back on track... I'm all for Schultz running, but only if he stays in until the end of the race.

[bad_teammate 13225]

54 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Just because you can't see the center from where you're standing doesn't mean it's not there. 

What is it? Describe it to me without vague platitudes.

What are the actual, real-life policy positions of this "center"?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What is it? Describe it to me without vague platitudes.

What are the actual, real-life policy positions of this "center"?

Centrists don’t have hardened policy positions.  

I think of them as malleable arbiters open to persuasion and influence but confident enough in their decision making ability to detect bullshit.

The problem is the bullshit has been cranked up to 11 and that’s all the “centrists” seem to hear now without properly being challenged. 

[Jhawk 1075]

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What is it? Describe it to me without vague platitudes.

What are the actual, real-life policy positions of this "center"?

That's the problem that most center people don't understand about the center.  It isn't a policy position it is a commitment of give and take.  There isn't common ground, there is compromise.  Chris Matthews said that and it was one of the best quotes I've heard about politics. The "Center" is a bunch of people who are willing to give and take.  The problem with the center is that I would give abortion and take on immigration.  The guy next to me would cave on immigration to stop abortion.  So the center really is a myth because I'd call that guy an idiot and he'd call me a moron.  No coalition.

The center doesn't get anyone elected.  In many ways, the center are the only adults in the room but we live in a political climate that doesn't reward being an adult and hasn't probably since the 80's (which was before my time).

Edited January 31, 2019 by Jhawk

[bad_teammate 13225]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Centrists don’t have hardened policy positions.  

I think of them as malleable arbiters open to persuasion and influence but confident enough in their decision making ability to detect bullshit.

The problem is the bullshit has been cranked up to 11 and that’s all the “centrists” seem to hear now without properly being challenged. 

The bolded part is either untrue or literally insane. Centrists have beliefs. Everyone has beliefs.

So people who have "hardened policy positions" are incapable of compromise? is the centrist credo literally, "I don't actually believe in anything."?

Just now, Jhawk said:

That's the problem that most center people don't understand about the center.  It isn't a policy position it is a commitment of give and take.  There isn't common ground, there is compromise. 

So would you acknowledge that the Democratic party is a centrist party, given its decades-long commitment to seeking bipartisan sponsorship of bills, floor debates, and behind-the-scenes bipartisan negotiation? Barack Obama, the guy who constantly negotiated with John Boehner for votes that he didn't need (and was never going to get), was a centrist, yes?

The Democrats offered $25B in wall funding for DACA protections.

I have a very strong feeling you can't admit it, because you choose Option #3.

Quote

In many ways, the center are the only adults in the room but we live in a political climate that doesn't reward being an adult and hasn't probably since the 80's (which was before my time).

So you weren't even aware of politics in the 1980s, but you're confident that it was filled with "adults in the room"? lol ok

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The bolded part is either untrue or literally insane. Centrists have beliefs. Everyone has beliefs.

Right, every centrists has their own personal beliefs but if we’re going to talk about centrists as a monolithic group those beliefs are not identifiable.

[bad_teammate 13225]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Right, every centrists has their own personal beliefs but if we’re going to talk about centrists as a monolithic group those beliefs are not identifiable.

Yes, because... wait for it... centrism is a myth and it always has been.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Yes, because... wait for it... centrism is a myth and it always has been.

I feel like we’re going in circles. Yeah, it’s a myth but it’s a myth that has value because it keeps the non-centrists from going too far off the reservation.  

[Jhawk 1075]

23 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

So would you acknowledge that the Democratic party is a centrist party, given its decades-long commitment to seeking bipartisan sponsorship of bills, floor debates, and behind-the-scenes bipartisan negotiation? Barack Obama, the guy who constantly negotiated with John Boehner for votes that he didn't need (and was never going to get), was a centrist, yes?

 

No I won't concede that.  I won't concede that because that is one party saying "you're the bad guy not us."  Marquee things were never compromised on, just as they aren't now and weren't under Bush.  Would you concede that the republicans, who have reopened the government to negotiate in good faith with the dems on border security are the centrist party even though they didn't need to last month?  Of course you won't.

Centrism starts when everyone admits they are wrong and want to work toward a solution together.  Not when one party wins in being right and telling the other party they are wrong.

[bad_teammate 13225]

17 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

No I won't concede that.  I won't concede that because that is one party saying "you're the bad guy not us."

Centrists are people who compromise.

The Democratic Party seeks compromise.

But the Democratic Party isn't centrist?

Quote

Marquee things were never compromised on, just as they aren't now and weren't under Bush. 

Like what? Please be specific. I know it goes against the centrist ethic to have knowledge and be specific, but humor me.

Quote

Would you concede that the republicans, who have reopened the government to negotiate in good faith with the dems on border security are the centrist party even though they didn't need to last month?  Of course you won't.

Opening the government isn't compromise because "having a government that is open" is not a Democratic Party issue.

Quote

Centrism starts when everyone admits they are wrong and want to work toward a solution together.  Not when one party wins in being right and telling the other party they are wrong.

And what if one group is actually right?

Edited January 31, 2019 by bad_teammate

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I will admit the democrats WERE the centrist party but because of Trump and the republicans, they are progressively abandoning the centrist turf.

They don’t have a choice and that’s why we’re getting Howard fucking Schultz today.

[bad_teammate 13225]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I will admit the democrats WERE the centrist party but because of Trump and the republicans, they are progressively abandoning the centrist turf.

They don’t have a choice and that’s why we’re getting Howard fucking Schultz today.

How? The Democrats literally just offered Trump $20B for the wall in exchange for DACA.

You people are a cancer.

We are getting Howard Schultz because moderate Republicans are alienated and nothing more.

Edited January 31, 2019 by bad_teammate

[Jhawk 1075]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Centrists are people who compromise.

The Democratic Party seeks compromise.

But the Democratic Party isn't centrist?

Like what? Please be specific. I know it goes against the centrist ethic to have knowledge and be specific, but humor me.

Opening the government isn't compromise because "having a government that is open" is not a Democratic Party issue.

And what if one group is actually right?

The ACA.

It was a compromise to open the government.  Only non-essential workers were furloughed.  Non-essential means they aren't crucial to the success of the government.  And the dems were the ones who wanted it open and the repubs were the ones who wanted a wall.  The repubs succumbed to the dems in favor of honest negotiation.  The repubs were the party of compromise.

THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG IN GOVERNMENT.  There are ideals.  Ideals which each party tries to push upon the other.  Look at the venezuela thread.  Dems and repubs alike agree on things in that thread.  That doesn't mean either is right as there are dems and repubs alike that disagree with other dems/repubs.  Right and wrong implies fact based evidence.  There is no fact based evidence that tax changes make the economy go or that abortion is evil.  It is all belief.

It sounds more like "BT is right and everyone else is wrong so anyone who doesn't think exactly like me is wrong."  You can't even admit that your party has ever been wrong dude.  You're a radical at that point.

[WhatTheBuck 28806]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

What is it? Describe it to me without vague platitudes.

What are the actual, real-life policy positions of this "center"?

It's a statistical median in the political spectrum. It's the center of the bell curve of political policy positions. Let's say it's half way between George HW Bush and the Clintons. 

You can say that the line of scrimmage is a myth but you'll still get called offside if you're standing over it when the ball is snapped. 

Really, though, what I was saying was a just a rhetorical comment suggesting that you're so far to the left that wtf do you know about the center. I found it amusing. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

How? The Democrats literally just offered Trump $20B for the wall in exchange for DACA.

You people are a cancer.

We are getting Howard Schultz because moderate Republicans are alienated and nothing more.

Your troll colors are showing. 

When the billionaire white guy says he’s afraid of AOC and Elizabeth Warren, I believe him. 

The democrats aren’t there yet but the ball is rolling away from the centrist direction 

[bad_teammate 13225]

Just now, WhatTheBuck said:

It's a statistical median in the political spectrum. It's the center of the bell curve of political policy positions. Let's say it's half way between George HW Bush and the Clintons. 

You can say that the line of scrimmage is a myth but you'll still get called offside if you're standing over it when the ball is snapped. 

Really, though, what I was saying was a just a rhetorical comment suggesting that you're so far to the left that wtf do you know about the center. I found it amusing. 

So... a moderate Republican? That's what a centrist is?

[bad_teammate 13225]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Your troll colors are showing. 

When the billionaire white guy says he’s afraid of AOC and Elizabeth Warren, I believe him. 

The democrats aren’t there yet but the ball is rolling away from the centrist direction 

Yeah, me too. What are you talking about? White billionaires represent the center of American politics?

Both of you are literally describing centrist politics as moderate Republican politics. How are you guys so lacking in basic self-awareness?

[Jhawk 1075]

If everyone around you is lacking in basic self awareness maybe it’s time to ask if you’re the one lacking awareness?

But I guess the guy who is always right in all of his OPINIONS isn’t capable of doing that. 

Edited January 31, 2019 by Jhawk

[Anastasis 23491]

No he's very loathingly self aware.  That's why as the board's most vocal democratic socialist, posting from behind the walls of his gated community, he projects onto everyone else a lack of political principles and core values. 

[bad_teammate 13225]

1 minute ago, Jhawk said:

If everyone around you is lacking in basic self awareness maybe it’s time to ask if you’re the one lacking awareness?

Isn't that exactly what centrism is? The belief that all these other people are crazy?

When someone says they are a centrist, what they are saying is, "I am the barometer for what is normal and good."

You have WhatTheBuck saying that centrism is halfway between GHWB and Clinton. You have jhawk and Hugo saying that centrism isn't about policy positions at all. All I'm saying is that it doesn't mean anything at all, and you guys contradict each other in trying to define it, which is just further evidence that it doesn't actually mean jack shit.

I have very strong beliefs and ideas. I'm wrong all the time and I offer terrible opinions all the time. But at no point do I delude myself, as many of you guys do, that I'm some kind of "center" of anything. Centrism is not about ideas, it's about the ego of the individual claiming to be a centrist.

[Huckleberry 33114]

Hypothesis: Centrism is the cause of our current political situation. This is because when there are two sides to every issue it makes long term strategic sense to go more extreme in your views if you are committed to one side. By doing so, the "center" moves closer to your initial position. Therefore in the long run public opinion gradually moves toward your actual desires as millions of Americans scramble to adjust so they can tell all their buddies they're centrist and independent. So the correct play for both sides is to get nuttier.

And I hate to break it to y'all, but bad_teammate is schooling some of you on this thread. Nobody has defined centrism yet. Agreeing with one side on some stuff and the other side on other stuff doesn't make you centrist, it merely means you don't fully agree with either party (it is closer to making you independent than centrist). Being willing to compromise doesn't make you centrist, it merely means you care more about some of your opinions than others.