J.C.MacSwell

Yes. It wouldn't be necessary that the carbon taxes go to subsidies. Simply make them appropriate to the damage they cause. (not an easy calculation, and every country or state would look at it differently, with some preferring to have the environment "subsidize" their industries with a lack of it, to give themselves a trade advantage) The problem is the political will to do it, for all 7+ and growing billion of us.

Isn't that currently still dependant on green subsidies and carbon taxes?

I really don't see that. At all. The Democrats seem to be holding their own, despite clearly shifting Left. In fact your graphic displays them to the Left of median Europe. I would take the NY times opinion with a grain or two of salt. As one should with any clearly agenda based "journalism". Or is it okay when the article comes from a Left leaning (how have they not keeled over) publication? Disclaimer: Yes. Right leaning publications can be just as egregious.

Uncivil discourse? It's probably proportional to the level of offence the propagator is attempting to imply. Like the boy who called wolf, credibility gets lost when the call is not accurate and when the level doesn't match the rhetoric. I'm not sure why that's controversial, other than it can be debated whether to focus more on the base and motivating reluctant voters within it or focusing on persuading swing voters that are likely to vote. Do you not respect Republicans more that try to keep that in balance, than those that just espouse angry rhetoric toward the Left? Or are they just wasted lives that don't deserve any consideration at all?

I read that too quickly. Centre on the left-right spectrum. So essentially I believe I used it correctly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderate I was actually trying to find a more acceptable term when I reread it. It's not cut and dried and I'm certainly no linguist, so quite happy to be corrected and open to being convinced, but there you go.. "In recent years, the term political moderates has gained traction as a buzzword. The existence of the ideal moderate is disputed because of a lack of a moderate political ideology. Voters who describe themselves as centrist often mean that they are moderate in their political views, advocating neither extreme left-wing politics nor extreme right-wing politics. Gallup polling has shown American voters identifying themselves as moderate between 35–38% of the time over the last 20 years.[4] Voters may identify with moderation for a number of reasons: pragmatic, ideological or otherwise. It has even been suggested that individuals vote for centrist parties for purely statistical reasons" Advocating civil discourse? Obviously many are lamenting the lack of it. Is that not evidence of a preference for it?

Why are you asking me to cite a pundit that might agree with me?

As I suggested on page one, pages and pages ago....or one page back to be precise...a third party would make it more likely.

I googled it. My context was "a person who holds moderate views, especially in politics". I hadn't realized Americans consider it centre left. The Oxford dictionary suggests the first definition and Wiki suggests the latter for Americans but not otherwise.

As per my post above (it came at essentially at the same time as your's so you probably didn't see it) enough rejected Trump but voted Republican down ballot. I consider this evidence that moderates can make a difference. You're requesting an argument from authority?

To win over the moderates. No pass. They need to be nicer as well. Again, if they want to win over the moderates. If either side don't, and feel the ends of getting out more of their base justify their tactics, how is it not hypocritical to complain about the other side doing the same? I was also addressing INow in particular with that question. I guess I could address someone on the Right with the equivalent question, if one happens to post in a one sided manner and I see no one piling on them already, ...though I thought I covered it here generally in that very short post: Having said all that, what makes you feel the Democrats deserve a free pass from yourself? (and others on here consistently disparaging only one side) Or at least with respect to the recent election, how did the Democrat tactics work? If it wasn't for Trump's inept response to the Pandemic, it seems likely he would be getting another term. As it was, enough moderates rejecting Trump but voted Republican down ballot to allow them gains in the House, and possibly hang on to the Senate. This was not expected, even accounting for any gerrymandering that was already established and known to be in place well prior to the latest campaign. Because I believe there are enough moderates to make a difference. Again look to the recent election...enough to throw out Trump while still allowing the Republicans gains in the House. The Republicans may have felt no need to reasonably align with their voters (I think that's greatly overstated in any case)....but at least they had the sense not to espouse such misalignment as "defund the police". (note that Biden was notable in not taking that stance, but speaking up against it at least to some degree)

I can understand your frustration, but when faced with statements such as "it's nearly impossible for Republicans to lose" (or even for more reasonable claims against Republicans, which tend to predominate ones against Democrats in this Forum), I'm more likely to give a counterargument than "sing to the choir", given that my positions tend to be moderate and my view that much of the political rhetoric generally is self defeating, especially when overstated or simply inaccurate. I do realize it does motive many on both sides to get out and vote, but it loses credibility with moderates, and often motivates potential voters on the other side. Are you are against speaking more nicely to the Right on principle, even if it could reduce, in part at least, making it "nearly impossible for Republicans to lose"?

Thanks. With it being behind a paywall I'm not going to understand the context of that abstract as written, but it seems they've concluded that while both Parties lawmakers are often not aligned with there constituents when voting, Republicans are even more tolerant of their lawmakers voting against their wishes, or at least the majority wishes of their districts. Shouldn't that indicate untapped potential for the Democrats, if they toned down the vitriol toward voters to the right of them? (Also indicating room for a third party to make some headway if one were to form) Were you able to read the article or just the abstract?

The link doesn't seem to work.

Yes. Happy Birthday Yusef, and may Cyclical Theory apply!

No worries. I think it's an arbitrary orientation and representation in any case.

The longer one? Or the shorter one? Or one directly into the page? Just sayin'

Still many paths available at that point...but all end up at the center as you pointed out. All must have an inward radial component.

Obviously no one is unbiased, we all have our personal experiences. But this would make MigL a somewhat rare Canadian. As a Canadian I just don't see it in his posts. I see him stating his opinions in reply to mostly Democrat posters and being read by same. I expect he has many views right across the political spectrum, mostly within the Canadian political spectrum. If I had to bet I would say he's voted Liberal more often than not, though I'm far from certain, but that would put him Left of the "old school Democrats" for whatever that's worth. Just my $0.02 (probably overpriced as I don't think I have a brother just like him...😀 )

When it's that close, many factors can be the difference, even on their own.

When I want to know what you think makes INow say something...I'll be sure to ask.

Why have you not simply condemned the bigotry against a group of rural Americans and moved on? Maybe to participate in the thread? How about attacking my ideas rather than me personally? (If Clinton had simply done that, she most likely would have been POTUS. It was that close in 2016.)

What makes you say that? This seems like a personal attack based on something I haven't addressed to your satisfaction. Are we discussing me...or how "the deplorables" might think and act? I had hoped that would be sufficient to this point in the discussion.

Nope. Just a joke. I think we need to stay open and question our sources. At least by citing them other's can do the same.

Some "racist behaviour" is clearly just that. Other "racist behaviour" is simply not conforming to other's agenda driven, and often intolerant, ideas on how they should act, sometimes to the point of absurdity and social bullying. I suspect that more Trump voters were rejecting the latter, than supporting the former. Maybe I'm just naive.

"37% of data cited on the internet is made up, incorrectly attributed, or both" -Mahatma Ghandi