re: #188 Great White Snark

Yes of course. Thing is, these things really need not be exclusive. The answer “none” bears a logic problem with the premise of the question.Think I saw that answer coming maybe? A point that I will repeat. “Moderate” is a legitimate term in a relative use. For all an election can do, it’s rhetoric does not give the critics special powers over our language. Not even the ones with a good point to make.

I’m really not sure what the point of your question was. Most immigration activists - the people you wanted to select the “least bad” option in the question you posed - aren’t going to vote in the Republican primary anyway. Why should they? As a whole the party is anti-immigrant. The activists’ time and effort are better spent working with politicians who are actually going to care about what they have to say, as opposed to only caring about them for their vote but being willing to drop them like a hot potato if necessary to cater to the crazies, who matter an awful lot in the primaries.

Which was EPR’s point. Sure, say Jeb isn’t as extreme on immigration as, say, Steve King. But if Steve King (and people like him) are the ones writing the immigration portion of the GOP party platform, I’m not sure what difference Jeb’s so-called moderation makes. On the flip side, casting him a “moderate” in the sense that he is more “centrist” (hahahahaha, oh man) distracts the conversation from the fact that the Republican party has moved so far to the right that they’re off in the fucking weeds. That’s the issue I think EPR was getting at.