@freemo Most of what you're describing happened before half the electorate graduated from high school, so I kind of doubt it was a major factor.

But, yeah, I think a lot of the reason why he was considered a moderate was because he had mostly extremely mainline liberal views but "moderated" them with a few extreme right-wing views.

@louis

Moderate doesnt mean taking radical views from both sides and having a mix and match of radicalism... You dont become moderate because you support slavery AND communism at the same time. Moderates are people where all their views are balanced and well reasoned, considering nuance and argument from both sides, and generally means your stance is one that is in disagreement with both sides, finding the non-radical moderate reasonable solutions down the line.

@amerika

One thing i realize about this discussion, and I may do a write up, is how people, most people in fact, cant really see the world in absolute terms, only in relative terms. Like if the democrats were acting this way 20 years ago when republicans were actually acting somewhat rational I bet even your most staunch democrat would say the democrats have went completely radical and were acting like lunatics. But when it sits next tot he republicans who are just as loony they seem reasonable and normal.

The fact that most people base what is acceptable based on relativity to the norm, rather than an absolute sense of reason is scary, and perhaps one of our biggest flaws.

(note: no offense to Louis, while he may have resembled some of that here generally he is a pretty reasonable and respectable feller).

@louis

@amerika

Well no you can argue against it. When you gas the poor, since being poor is not unlinked from the environment you arent producing less poor people since society changes.

For example someone might be poor int he USA but that same person if they were in europe might not be poor, because the kind of person they are would thrive in one environment but not the other.

One could just as easily (and wrongly) argue that if you gas all the rich you will make society better because the poor people would now be able to thrive and become the rich themselves, and create an environment where poor people thrive and thus are eliminated.

The truth is, breeding doesnt work like that. You can breed specific traits that are easily measures (like height) but complex things like being poor you cant just breed out by directly killing the poor, you'd have to understand the underlying problems and fix those, which are unlikely to be genetic in nature.

@louis

@amerika

> No, they're likely genetic in nature. Poor = dumber, generally.

No basis in reality for that what soever. People with low IQ generally can learn all sorts of high skilled labour jobs and make money just fine. The vast majority of the poor tend to be veterans who have severe mental health issues arrising from lack of mental health access combined with abuse expiernced during their service. Again something you wont see in countries that treat their people better and provide good vet services and mental health access.

Im not saying you should be concerned with europe. The point is societies change, and american can change in ways that would stop poor people from being an issue because it isnt a genetic problem to begin with but a societal one.

Its like sitting there punching people in the face and then when they start to flinch trying to blame genetic and then thinking if you kill off all the people that flinch then you wont have people flinching anymore.

Frankly, its a pretty idiotic viewpoint.

@louis

@amerika

> We have scientific proof of the genetic basis of intelligence.

At no point did I suggest there is no genetic basis to intelligence. I stated there is no genetic basis for being poor, and that poor is not determined primarily by intelligence.

Considering your response suggests low intelligence, as you didnt understand what I said, sounds like you need to be gassed. I'm willing to use you as the test subject for your proposed solution.

@louis