http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/16/politi...ame/index.html
Yup, fuck those evil republicans, look at them embracing Nazis.
Moderates are boring, "unappealing" and quiet.
"In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Paradox of tolerance
I see that more as conflicted than moderate
For example my parents were liberal on everything except abortion, but still always voted democrat.
Assuming you hold the views you just stated, how do you typically come to conclusions regarding candidates who represent only half of your views? Do you typically find yourself needing to compromise one for the other?
I mean maybe it is US current politics that has soured the idea of "Conservative" but one of my greatest respected Politicians is Teddy Roosevelt, who was by many of his definitions, both extremely progressive and obsessed with Conservation. I think it's rather recently people have assumed Conservation efforts like National parks are somehow "Liberal" and "Progressive" in their ideal.
Compromise. I voted Tory, despite hating Austerity and their love of Privatization because the Alternative was Jeremy Corbyn, who wanted to nationalize a ton of stuff for no reason, was flaky on his parties stance on Brexit and has communist elements in his party. I know it's far easier to wait out the Storm of Corbyn, and wait for a more Whiggist Labour party to then vote again for them. I feel the Price of the Individual is always sacrificed first under "Socialist" ideas.
Moderates do not participate in politics because politics is an extremist activity.
All right, gentleperchildren, let's review. The year is 2024 - that's two-zero-two-four, as in the 21st Century's perfect vision - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of still-masked clots ridden infertile senile sissies who want the Last Ukrainian to die so they can get on with the War on China, with some middle-eastern genocide on the side
They are by definition both liberal and progressive.
Liberal because it involves the appropriation of non-public land for a public purpose, and the allocation of tax dollars to protect and maintain it.
Progressive because conservation efforts generally involve in large part attempts to prevent corporations from doing something to damage the specific protected environment - like, say, running an oil pipeline through it, or drilling, or fracking, or dumping waste in a watershed area.
Politicians blame the opposing side for everything that is bad and claim that all the changes they want to make will improve the situation. Logic would say that's basically impossible. But voting is a game of power. You don't win by praising the success of your rival.
The most reasonable way to improve the extremism is by changing the voting system itself, but there are no strong incentives to do that in the United States. It's the voting system that forces politicians to behave like that, not because they are good or bad people. They are simply trying to win according to the rules laid out to them.
I love how people here says there's no far left, when the alt right is nothing but the reaction to the radicalization process its been happening in the left through the last few years.
There were no alt right until recently and nazis were only dwelling on the deepest and darkests places of the internetz. But then, the sjw, blm and antifas started to make a lot of noise, destroy things and stuff. People got scared and as an answer, radicalized themselves too, giving birth to the alt right.
The moderate left got afraid of the alt right and radicalized themselves too, causing a snowball effect, reducing the amount of moderates