Democracy only works with compromise

Democracy only works with compromise.

Any government ruled by far-left or far-right radical ideologues is a complete disaster. Radical ideologues threaten democracy as they will always choose their personal convictions over the will of the people. The most prosperous and successful nations are those ruled primarily by moderates.

The founding of our nation was built on a consensus reached by compromise after exhaustive debate, the U.S. Constitution could be subtitled "consensus reached by compromise".

>inb4 but we're not a democracy

We get it, you just passed 6th grade civics class. A republic is a representative democracy you clueless faggot.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Partisanship is a danger to any nation, it literally disables the functioning of any government.

People are attracted to sensationalism and extremism, especially when they are younger. Believing in some idealistic fantasy utopia is almost a coping mechanism for them. It's exciting and novel, but ignores reality.

>tfw too intelligent for Sup Forums

...

Centrism is relative to the country's values and majority opinion.

For example, in Russia, Putin's party (United Russia) is the centrist party that unites different factions together. Putin is scared to death of partisanship or division, and constantly has his pulse on the opinion of the public to know what they want.

This is also why the Kremlin promotes extremism in other countries, to divide them and render their governments dysfunctional. They will promote left-wing or right-wing radicalism, it doesn't matter as long as it creates dysfunction.

>tfw too intelligent to shitpost with the plebs

>no habbenings
>no shoahs
>no holocoasters
>no chimp outs
>no conflict
>agreeing

wow centrism is boring

Centrism would crash the meme markets

Compromise is boring
Day of the rope!

>Partisanship is a danger to any nation

The real silent majority is the moderates, it's the crazy radical left and radical right that are obnoxiously loud and drown out the reasonable majority of people who actually have jobs and don't have time to be whiny little faggots.

oh vey be a good centrist goy

...

>Any government ruled by far-left or far-right radical ideologues is a complete disaster
All moderate nations fail, centrists bad

> The most prosperous and successful nations are those ruled primarily by moderates.
All nations run by centrists are shit

You are guys are dumb, centrism is a failure.

>centrism is da joos conspiracy

Wow, coming from a country that's been fucked over countless times throughout history by radical ideologues.

When will you ever learn?

You are pleb

and dumb

>you

Coming from America, a nation that was made great through extreme ideologies and made shit by centrist ideas

Extreme Presidents

>FDR
>Reagan
>Lincoln
>Jackson

Moderate Presidents

>Bucham
>Obama
>Jimmy Carter
>Bush Sr

YEEEEEAAAAHHH

Orthodox Christian Monarchy is government divinely established, and directed, ultimately, to the other world, government with the teaching of Christian Truth and the salvation of souls as its profoundest purpose; Nihilist rule--whose most fitting name, as we shall see, is Anarchy---is government established by men, and directed solely to this world, government which has no higher aim than earthly happiness.

The Liberal view of government, as one might suspect, is an attempt at compromise between these two irreconcilable ideas. In the 19th century this compromise took the form of "constitutional monarchies," an attempt--again--to wed an old form to a new content; today the chief representatives of the Liberal idea are the "republics" and "democracies" of Western Europe and America, most of which preserve a rather precarious balance between the forces of authority and Revolution, while professing to believe in both.

It is of course impossible to believe in both with equal sincerity and fervor, and in fact no one has ever done so. Constitutional monarchs like Louis Philippe thought to do so by professing to rule "by the Grace of God and the will of the people"--a formula whose two terms annul each other, a fact as equally evident to the Anarchist as to the Monarchist.

Now a government is secure insofar as it has God for its foundation and His Will for its guide; but this, surely, is not a description of Liberal government. It is, in the Liberal view, the people who rule, and not God; God Himself is a "constitutional monarch" Whose authority has been totally delegated to the people, and Whose function is entirely ceremonial. The Liberal believes in God with the same rhetorical fervor with which he believes in Heaven. The government erected upon such a faith is very little different, in principle, from a government erected upon total disbelief, and whatever its present residue of stability, it is clearly pointed in the direction of Anarchy.

A government must rule by the Grace of God or by the will of the people, it must believe in authority or in the Revolution; on these issues compromise is possible only in semblance, and only for a time. The Revolution, like the disbelief which has always accompanied it, cannot be stopped halfway; it is a force that, once awakened, will not rest until it ends in a totalitarian Kingdom of this world. The history of the last two centuries has proved nothing if not this. To appease the Revolution and offer it concessions, as Liberals have always done, thereby showing that they have no truth with which to oppose it, is perhaps to postpone, but not to prevent, the attainment of its end. And to oppose the radical Revolution with a Revolution of one's own, whether it be "conservative," " non-violent," or "spiritual," is not merely to reveal ignorance of the full scope and nature of the Revolution of our time, but to concede as well the first principle of that Revolution: that the old truth is no longer true, and a new truth must take its place.

>All moderate nations fail, centrists bad

Examples?

As far as I can see the most prosperous and stable nations have been run primarily by moderates.

>centrism is a failure

No, any country run by radical ideologues ends up as a failure. It's always a disaster. Every. Fucking. Time.

>make a joke about 'centrist symbol' being the same as mastercard
>some retard amerifat younger than my wife's son tries to give me some faggot history lesson about my country he's never lived in
>he probably thinks he's smart and wise
ayyy

>As far as I can see the most prosperous and stable nations have been run primarily by moderates.
U.S, Rome, Nazi Germany, USSR

>No, any country run by radical ideologues ends up as a failure. It's always a disaster. Every. Fucking. Time.
Every moderate nation degenerates within 10 years.

>never lived in
You literally should not be allowed to discuss history of a nation if you live in it.

>Democracy [...] works
Wrong.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

>usa
U.S is very right leaning, but you are a fool if you think they came to dominate the world based on their own virtue. WW1 and 2 have a word with you.

>rome
Disintegrated into decadence

>USSR
Collapsed under it's own wight. Also >implying communism works

>Nazi Germany
Just lol.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

>U.S is very right leaning
Right now they are dead in the middle of the spectrum and were far-left during the 1950s, their glory days. FDR saved the economy with far far far left policies

>Disintegrated into decadence
Because too much moderism

>Collapsed under it's own wight. Also >implying communism works
Reagan destroyed it using far-right policies and communism does work.

>>Because too much moderism
>rome
>modernism
>fucking ROME
>modernism

Go home leaf, you're drunk.

>compromise!
>K
>compromise again!
>K
>compromise again!
>K
>compromise again!
>K
>compromise again!
No. I'm done. Those faggots keep demanding more and more and more and they're never satisfied. I'm done. They can fuck off. It's their turn to compromise. I will not faulter.

>Rome
>Not moderate
Even if they weren't moderate they lasted like 1000 years the way they were.

Centrism is a meme.
Its just a cover to justify unpopular extremist positions like war while looking like "compromise" i.e Iraq and Libya.

>FDR

FDR saved capitalism and America from the spreading tide of populist socialism among workers. We came close to ending up with someone like Huey "Share our Wealth" Long who would've turn the US into the USSR. FDR didn't come into office with the New Deal, it was a compromise made to appease the mounting worker revolution.

>Reagan

Other than tripling our national debt with unsustainable tax policy, Reagan was somewhat moderate. His only extreme was low taxes.

Reagan implemented a healthcare mandate that still to this day requires hospitals to accept uninsured patients to their Emergency Room. He also supported the Brady Bill and assault weapons ban. Reagan compromised a lot.

>Lincoln

Lincoln set a new precedent for a united nation, but I don't believe this to be extreme. The abolishment of slavery was popular, perhaps not as much in the South. I do think Lincoln did what was inevitable.

>Jackson

Jackson was a horrible president. His economic policies led to recession.

>Bucham

Don't know who that is, this isn't a US president.

Moderate Presidents:

>James Monroe
>Eisenhower
>George H.W. Bush
>Bill Clinton

These presidents presided over excellent economies and general stability, they also compromised often with opposing parties.

>good governance is just a popularity contest

fucking clueless

this is exactly how extremism takes root

How come Jackson gets a bad note for a recession, but W doesn't?

it was the worst recession in history bar the great depression.

>FDR saved capitalism and America from the spreading tide of populist socialism among workers
By making America super socialist, he did exactly what the people wanted, he was a populist

>We came close to ending up with someone like Huey "Share our Wealth" Long who would've turn the US into the USSR. FDR didn't come into office with the New Deal, it was a compromise made to appease the mounting worker revolution.
No it's because he learned that the depression wasn't going to end with moderation, he needed to be extreme. He made the U.S socialist, that's not a compromise

>Other than tripling our national debt with unsustainable tax policy
Trippling the debt was the ONLY moderate thing Reagan did

>Reagan was somewhat moderate
He made the economy amazing and created the largest wage increase, was also pro-property rights

>Lincoln set a new precedent for a united nation, but I don't believe this to be extreme. The abolishment of slavery was popular, perhaps not as much in the South. I do think Lincoln did what was inevitable.
He was a shit president but he got shit done, and that's what you need as President. Also if he's moderate that kinda is my point about how shit moderate presidents are

>Jackson was a horrible president. His economic policies led to recession.
He ended the debt

>Don't know who that is, this isn't a US president.
The guy before Lincoln

>James Monroe
Far-Right

>Eisenhower
Was practically a flag-burner, insulted the founding Fathers and hated everything stood for, however he was VERY far left as you see in this quote

>George H.W.Bush
Why America is run by the rich

>Bill Clinton
The guy who ruined the economy and sent 3 million people to prison? That guy was good?

George H.W. Bush =/= George W. Bush

Two different presidents, my kiwi friend.

You're right about the recession though.

>not listening to the people is good
You are why moderates exist.

No he isn't. Bill Clinton caused the recession.

>Any government ruled by far-left or far-right radical ideologues is a complete disaster.
That's what the house and the senate are suppose to prevent.

When the majority wants to kill itself, should you follow?

There are some things that aren't worthy of compromise.

Except that doesn't happen. You are being anti-democracy.

>Except that doesn't happen.
Just because a suicide takes longer to notice doesn't make it not suicide.
>You are being anti-democracy
Yes, I am.

It's 2016 you have to be for democracy, in-fact it's illegal to be anti-democracy worldwide the U.S invades anyone who isn't democratic.

>Disintegrated into decadence

wtf do you think the western 'moderate' civilization is doing exactly?

>It's 2016
I'm sorry for anyone that's stupid enough to engage this shitposter after this.

Not an arguement

>i'm anti-democratic
I'm sorry for anyone stupid enough to even reply to this retard after he publically stated he wasn't for democracy.

>By making America super socialist, he did exactly what the people wanted, he was a populist

No, you're confused. He didn't make the U.S. "super socialist". Social security was based on Thomas Paine's "Agrarian Justice", though it's a social welfare program it hardly made the U.S. "super socialist". "Super socialist" is what Huey Long wanted.

>No it's because he learned that the depression wasn't going to end with moderation, he needed to be extreme.

Centrism doesn't mean paralyzing do-nothingness. It means compromise and reaching majority consensus, that is where the center lies.

The New Deal was bipartisan, with broad support in both parties.

>He made the U.S socialist, that's not a compromise

No, he saved capitalism by compromising with the popular sentiment at the time. The alternative would have been to become something like the USSR, which very well could have occurred at that time.

>Trippling the debt was the ONLY moderate thing Reagan did

That doesn't even make sense.

>He made the economy amazing

Even conservative economists at the time opposed it as unsustainable, but yes Reagan showed that tax cuts can work as economic stimulus.

>the largest wage increase

No, the largest wage increase occurred during the Postwar Economic Expansion from 1945-1971. Really peaking during the Eisenhower years.

>He was a shit president

Confirmed for fascist

>He ended the debt

And caused a subsequent recession.

>The guy before Lincoln

Buchanan not Bucham

>Far-Right

Nope, Centrist.

>Was practically a flag-burner, insulted the founding Fathers and hated everything stood for, however he was VERY far left

What the fuck are you talking about?

Eisenhower was a five-star general you clueless retard. As a Republican, he implemented infrastructure programs and was the epitome of bipartisan compromise.

>The guy who ruined the economy and sent 3 million people to prison?

Created lots of jobs, economic boom, cut taxes, created surplus.

You haven't presented any logic based arguments, just rhetorical fluff. You're as bad as any ideologue, and just admitted you are against popular rule.

>implying the only third option is compromise

kys, mehmet

>A republic is a representative democracy

But that's wrong too, you double nigger.

This statement does nothing to advance a discussion, care to explain what you think it is then.

>No, you're confused. He didn't make the U.S. "super socialist". Social security was based on Thomas Paine's "Agrarian Justice", though it's a social welfare program it hardly made the U.S. "super socialist". "Super socialist" is what Huey Long wanted.
It was ruled general welfare by the supreme court, it's socialism

>Centrism doesn't mean paralyzing do-nothingness. It means compromise and reaching majority consensus, that is where the center lies.
Then fuck compromise

The New Deal was Shit then

>No, he saved capitalism by compromising with the popular sentiment at the time. The alternative would have been to become something like the USSR, which very well could have occurred at that time.
That made no sense

>Even conservative economists at the time opposed it as unsustainable, but yes Reagan showed that tax cuts can work as economic stimulus.
((conservative)) ((economists))

>No, the largest wage increase occurred during the Postwar Economic Expansion from 1945-1971. Really peaking during the Eisenhower years.
Eisenhower was far left tho

>Confirmed for fascist
Confirmed for communist

>caused recession
Who cares? He paid off the debt

>Buchanan not Buchan
What?

>Eisenhower was a five-star general you clueless retard. As a Republican, he implemented infrastructure programs and was the epitome of bipartisan compromise.
He called George Washington and Ben Franklin stupid.

>Created lots of jobs, economic boom, cut taxes, created surplus.
Created 2008 recsesion and ran massive deficits.

>U.S
Moderate

>Rome
Moderate Republic, enjoyed half a millennia of prosperity and power which came to an end only because of... extreme partisanship and infighting you clueless fuck.

>Nazi Germany
Radical regime, failed state.

>USSR
Radical regime, failed state. Extremely high levels of poverty for a developed nation.

Is this really that hard for you to comprehend?

>Every moderate nation degenerates within 10 years.

No, the longest lasting and most prosperous nations are moderate. As evidenced by historical examples.

>moderate
WRONG U.S was far left in golden era

>Moderate Republic
It was moderate near the end it was extreme during it's prime dumbass

>radical regime, failed state
WRONG

>high levels of poverty
Everyone had healthcare, 2 cars, a home, education, they had it all

>No, the longest lasting and most prosperous nations are moderate. As evidenced by historical examples.
Wrong

The Republican system of government refers to the idea of state, local, and federal government, each level with designated powers and limitations

Burgerbro, my leaf friend is just sad that Justin Trudeau has approved pipelines and rejected the TRC because it was deemed un-constitutional by Parliament. He's angry with himself for supporting a moderate in socialist clothing.

And what else... do you have anything substantial to say or are you just here to provide corrections for definitions.

>It was ruled general welfare by the supreme court, it's socialism

Yes, it's a social welfare program. Nice work buddy.

>That made no sense

I'm sure it doesn't if you don't know anything about the history of U.S. politics or world politics. Socialist workers revolutions were spreading around the world, while unions were protesting and organizing their own uprisings here in the U.S. There was a lot of popular socialist sentiment at the time. Radical socialists like Huey Long were gaining traction across the country.

>((conservative)) ((economists))

Don't know why I'm wasting time with someone who believes in da joos conspiracy.

>Eisenhower was far left tho

No. Five-star General, Republican. You're retarded.

>Confirmed for communist

No, capitalist.

>Who cares? He paid off the debt

That literally means nothing. National debt is how nations operate and raise funds similar to a corporation issuing bonds or stock. My nation has always had one (except during Jackson), every developed nation operates with one.

The result was a recession.

>What?

You said "Bucham" here There is no President named "Bucham"

>He called George Washington and Ben Franklin stupid.

No.

>Created 2008 recsesion and ran massive deficits.

No, Clinton had very low deficits and even created a surplus. Comparatively, every Republican since Nixon hasn't come close to doing so because they usually reduce revenue with tax cuts and spending increases.

>social welfare
>not socialism
Nice try

You clearly don't know anything about politics or history. I don't know why I'm wasting my time with someone who actually believes in moderation.

Pic related is Eisenhower calling every single founding father stupid

>muh Nazi Germany
>triggered

1933-1945

12 years

FAILED STATE

>Nice try

Not what I said.

>Pic related is Eisenhower calling every single founding father stupid

No. Pic related is a five-star general turned president and the most moderate Republican president of the past century.

>a moderate in socialist clothing.

moderates always win

You constantly state that you don't know why you are wasting your time here, what does that have to do with the argument being presented? Just let your opinions and statistics speak for themselves, lest you feel you need the fluff to make them sound more appealing.

Unfortunately, centrists do not.

kek

>tfw too intelligent to hold any strong convictions or beliefs

>Soviet Russia was good time and much prosperity for all citizen!

You went full retard there, Boris.

>tfw too intelligent to associate to argue with the plebs

>tfw too intelligent to reply to anyone so you just lurk and laugh at what the plebs believe

You've done nothing to show your intelligence in this thread so i'll have to believe the opposite. Not that you care right?

>tfw too intelligent to not reply to shitposters who only want to post unwitty memes because you know that you really need to spread your superior centrist knowledge even though they are plebs who just can't comprehend

U

What happens when the far left extreme becomes the norm?

How can whites compromise with genocide?

You've been given ample opportunity to display your supposed knowledge and have not... last chance, i'm all ears.

>not a representative democracy

This is what Amerifat education looks like everyone.

In case you're looking for the answer:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

>tfw too intelligent to put all your faith in one ideology because it's a mix of good and bad ideas and blind partisan loyalty will inhibit your ability to learn from failed policies of said ideology so you take a pragmatic approach towards politics but then everyone thinks you're inherently boring because they don't understand and just want dank memes and happenings so you decide to just lurk and post memes instead

centrists are needed to keep a leash on you far right and far left idiots.

Literally what centrists do, it's why we're the actual silent majority.

>we're the actual silent majority

CENTRIST UPRISING

GAS THE SPECIAL SNOWFLAKES

>CENTRIST UPRISING

W-what is going in here? Guys?

DAY OF THE LEVEL IS COMING

...

topkek

step away from the keyboard mitt

...

Fucking christ kek

Was the tightrope walk over the twin towers the greatest political statement in centrism we have seen to date?

Personal/tribal preference can't be turned off. It's as innate as the drive for sex. If what you are saying is true, then democracy is incompatible with human nature.

...

who keeps drawing these fucking things

....wat wouldn't the answer be 8? or am I missing something?

I'm laughing, but I want it so bad I can taste it.

>common core

Oh sure now you want to compromise. For eight years you have been fucking the middle class up the ass telling the republican to go fuck themselves. Now that you have nothing, you want to compromise.

Fuck off demoncratz.

...

stfu pleb

stfu pleb

stfu pleb

Now that I think about it, I would say yes. It is extremely difficult to remain impartial, and balanced. You have to research every piece of news that is given to you, and it would feel so good to just surround yourself with yesmen and just shut out dissenting opinions.

But I try, I try really, really hard to stay in the middle. To pick policies not on how close they are to my preconceived notions, but how well studies and research from all sides of the political spectrum say they work. And the worst part is, no matter how well a system starts out working, it will always fail in the end. That is what history teaches us. That is what every sign points to. We always lose in the end. Every nation, every government, every kingdom and hamlet will fall in the end. And no matter how right we get it, no matter how hard we try, failure will be inevitable. So I don't even know why I give a fuck sometimes.

Sometimes I just want to say fuck it and give in to some extremist ideology, and use a bunch of idiots who follow me around to make money and live in wealth, surrounded by people who agree with me and want to make me happy. But for some fucking reason I keep on pressing forward, trying to toe that little line.

I refuse to believe in this retardation. How was this allowed. Also
>Choice E is not possible.
WTF....I can only cry.

Assuming you have; source please.