How "Moderates" Serve The Right

Post Reply New Topic

Hell no! I'm a moderate-----and I certainly don't "serve the Right!"

And it bothers me when just because I don't believe ALL which the "woke folks" believe in, it's assumed that I'm some of "rightist" or something.....or that I'm "serving the Right," somehow.

This sort of thing turns off a lot of people. They still might vote for the "liberal candidate"---but some of this woke stuff leaves a bad taste in their mouth.

You mean someone who's rich basically.

Strawman. Nobody thinks that all change is good. Also, the status quo is a moving train. Climate change keeps getting worse while doing nothing.

I've been saying that for years, but no one ever listens.

It turns off the people being criticized but they're not allies to begin with; they demonstrate that they're opponents through their actions and yet expect leftists to support their candidates.

Just to clarify, is this "moderate republicans" ?

No, centrists and liberals.

Let's pick Joe Manchin as a good example.

Yep, a lot of centrists are also getting sucked into the anti-woketivist crap as well

jivin' joe munchkin is at best a DINO who is carrying moscow mitch's water for him. he's a worthless sack of putrid parrot droppings. at this point, since he is effectively a republican, i wish the democrats would just expel him from their ranks. mitch the b!+ch is pretty much running things now [into the ground] anyways. IOW manchin the fascist is far worse than a stereotypical moderate.

It's not just that, it's way broader than that. I'm going to use liberal with a lower case l because I'm not talking specific to any one country or one party, I'm describing a broader pattern.

When there's an economic disruption think about how the aid is usually structured, it's rarely if ever focused on money to individuals or families (even when some money in that direction is included), instead it's largely money directed towards companies that they're expected to use with the idea that will stimulate the economy... and it goes towards executive bonuses and stock buy backs. But if the liberal party wrote the bill you don't get to blame conservatives even though you and everyone else knows I'm happy to blame conservatives whenever possible to the fullest extent possible.

How does one get reform that addresses insider trading when the party that's supposed to favour regulations is filled with people who engage in insider trading? Democrats in the US have this problem and I'm sure they're not the only example.

When it's protections for the environment, attempts to fix problems with the social safety net, attempts at justice reform, making attempts to address historic injustices or countless other issues quite often moderates within that liberal party won't even agree to hear proposals unless they're watered down significantly, then they demand further concessions and after getting those concessions often still end up failing to secure enough votes to get it done.

It seems as though there's a long standing pattern of taking leftist votes for granted while delivering little to nothing and often worse than nothing.

Leftists don't seem to be the only bloc for whom that's true. Lots of minority communities have long recognized the same sort of treatment where those parties fail to deliver much when it comes to community concerns because they know it's unlikely that the bloc will shift allegiances because the opponents are even worse.

A lot of moderate liberals are just the mildest form of conservative, contributing very little but lectures towards people in pursuit of justice and fairness that they're just going to have to wait.

THIS. Every time I see this kind of argument, I think of Gaston from "Beauty and the Beast" crying "If you're not with us, you're against us!" while whipping up the angry mob.

Or, it's like if a firefighter said "Everyone who's not a firefighter is an arsonist."



I think the quote above the one you're replying to is saying that all change is good. I have even seen people argue that all change is good in non-political discussions -- i.e., "You have to think every change to Disneyland is good because Walt Disney said 'Disneyland will never be complete as long as there is imagination left in the world,' so that means change is good."

Also, your political ideology is part of the status quo as well, but it seems you don't want to change. Case in point:



Arguments like the one made by roronoa79 above seem to depict the majority of citizens as obstacles. This makes it seem like you'd rather have a single-party system where nobody ever disagrees with you. But even if that were the case, you'd still have the rest of us living here. What would you do with us?

Last edited by vividgroovy on 21 Dec 2021, 11:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.

You do realize that if Manchin left the Democrats, that would give the Republicans the majority and make Mitch McConnell the majority leader again, right? That West Virginia is unwinnable by any other Democrat? I'm going to laugh so hard if the morons in the Squad piss off Manchin enough to do it, and then Breyer dies and Mitch just smiles...

You mean the guy saving the Democratic party from itself? Like I just said to another poster, he's the only reason the Democrats have a majority at all given the demographics of his state (well that and Trump being stupid in Georgia last year), without him things would be even more dead in the water than they currently are.

Saving it from itself how? He's not working to make the Democratic Party deliver jackshit for working people, he's a good example of someone who will deliver on corporate welfare but get cold feet when it comes to helping families.

Liberals who fail to deliver any results for average working people are at least as much of an issue as anything else you can name and failing in this way makes some things like 'wokeness' a lot more offensive to some working people.

Alliances needs to go both ways, what the left seems to want is unwavering support under threat of being called some sort of bigot if you disagree with them on either means or ends, and that isn't any sort of alliance at all. The left acts as if they can afford these purity tests when they really can't, and don't seem to understand that making everyone hate them isn't a sound strategy, there's a lot of people who vote out of spite, or at least use spite as a tie-breaker when they aren't sure, and constantly being the loudest jackasses in politics makes the left collectively a convenient target for a lot of that spite.

Well, he's preventing them from passing a budget busting inflation boosting mess of a bill when they're already staring down electoral Armageddon next year, and he's blocking them from tearing down the filibuster, the only thing standing between them and ruin the next time the GOP has control, which McConnell has explicitly threatened.