Canadian truckers, Come on down

[Gamecockben1979]

My personal experience is the opposite with kids and their feelings on masks.

And I disagree strongly that teaching on zoom can be as effective or more so. I'd be willing to entertain that thought for older children, but not middle or grade school, at all. But this has been hashed and rehashed on this forum enough.

You are free to disagree, that does not make you right. I had two kids that learned virtually last year that are in person this year. The reasons they went back were one hundred percent social and had nothing to do with the quality of education they received online. One is on track to be valedictorian. The other is in grade school and reading three levels above her grade level. Certainly that would not be the case if virtual hurt them in any way, shape or form. Their grades did not change regardless of format.

There are plenty of virtual kids stronger than their in person counterparts. It’s not about in person or virtual. It’s about whether or not that child has the motivation to succeed and if the parent is willing to step in and provide that motivation when the student lacks it.

 

[section907]

GCBen. When given a choice. How many kids in your class wear mask when not mandated. To say they don’t care is 1000% wrong. If they didn’t care they would wear them out after school. Anywhere it’s not Mandated , very few wear them. So to say the majority don’t care is a personal narrative.

zoom class is definitely safer but no way is it better. I don’t intend to change your mind. The fact that you or others believe zoom is better or could be better than in person learning is usually when I kindly bail out of any conversation. We can agree that my perception of importance of in person learning is different from yours. And that is ok. Carry on.
Enjoy your banter

 

[bucketdad]

Bait and switch by whom and for what purpose? To get people to wear masks?

I think most people are over having to think about Covid. And yes, the messaging has changed over the last two years, but that’s because Covid is a moving target. The different variants all provided different issues. Hopefully omicron (being highly contagious with the mildest symptoms) is the one that gets us over the hump to finally move past this.

And I fully expect some politicians to try and take advantage of this pandemic years down the road, but that’s why we don’t have singular leaders that make all the decisions for us. So even though people may state something stupid like no school until no cases - that’s not actually what happens.

We are already seeing how easy it is for a politician to change their mind on masking up with an election on the horizon. And what the consiquences can be if they continue on course based on elections that have already taken place. Its political now. But yeah, its gonna get even more political.
I dont really see that the science on covid has changed all that much other than newer variants seem weaker, surfaces aren't as contaminated as we though and such. Kids still arent much of a factor. The vulnerable are still at risk but most are vaxed. Masks may help some but questionable. I could go on but to stick with masks, I gotta think the ones like Fauci calling the shots knew exactly how effective certain masks were on virus'. Yet they kept telling us what they thought we needed to hear at a given time imo... right or wrong in doses and for the greater good. Now you're gonna disagree with that I'm sure. I'm just stating my opinion and I'm not here to change yours. If I feel like I'm being lied to, your credibility is shot. Sometimes with unknowns, I gotta go on feelings.

I'm of the opinion that the govt works for the people so it's important to give the people the facts. Otherwise, it's dictatorship. If the people say it's over, it should be over... especally if it looks like the politicians fear ending it themselves. I hope we dont have to wait as long as November tho.

 

[Lurker123]

You are free to disagree, that does not make you right. I had two kids that learned virtually last year that are in person this year. The reasons they went back were one hundred percent social and had nothing to do with the quality of education they received online. One is on track to be valedictorian. The other is in grade school and reading three levels above her grade level. Certainly that would not be the case if virtual hurt them in any way, shape or form. Their grades did not change regardless of format.

There are plenty of virtual kids stronger than their in person counterparts. It’s not about in person or virtual. It’s about whether or not that child has the motivation to succeed and if the parent is willing to step in and provide that motivation when the student lacks it.

Well, you are certainly free to your opinion as well, that does not make you right either.

Neither being valedictorian (since all kids are affected), nor reading above grade level (as you point out, child's drive, parent involvement over the long term) really preclude virtual being a negative impact.

And social reasons are also quite important as well, not to be dismissed.

I agree the child's success has more to do with the child's and parents drive and input. But eliminating individual cases, it is not beneficial to the student population as a whole.

 

[Lurker123]

Truckers need to get out of the way - this is no different than when Antifa blocked the highways

Well, so far there's been quite a lot less destruction, death and burnt down buildings. Maybe it has to do with them being Canadian though.

 

[Gamecock Jacque]

You are free to disagree, that does not make you right.

The superintendent of the Dallas ISD here is a liberal. They only had virtual "learning" last year and the majority of teachers wanted to continue using that but before the school year began he emphatically said no, that the children did not learn anything last year and he damn sure wasn't going to take another year of education from them. It's interesting though that if virtual learning becomes a thing we certainly would need a WHOLE LOT LESS of teachers, administrators, or even buildings. Would save taxpayers a boatload. But the ones to suffer would be the children.

 

[Gamecockben1979]

GCBen. When given a choice. How many kids in your class wear mask when not mandated. To say they don’t care is 1000% wrong. If they didn’t care they would wear them out after school. Anywhere it’s not Mandated , very few wear them. So to say the majority don’t care is a personal narrative.

zoom class is definitely safer but no way is it better. I don’t intend to change your mind. The fact that you or others believe zoom is better or could be better than in person learning is usually when I kindly bail out of any conversation. We can agree that my perception of importance of in person learning is different from yours. And that is ok. Carry on.
Enjoy your banter

So by your thought that in person is better for everyone means that anyone in person would far exceed anyone that is virtual.

The superintendent of the Dallas ISD here is a liberal. They only had virtual "learning" last year and the majority of teachers wanted to continue using that but before the school year began he emphatically said no, that the children did not learn anything last year and he damn sure wasn't going to take another year of education from them. It's interesting though that if virtual learning becomes a thing we certainly would need a WHOLE LOT LESS of teachers, administrators, or even buildings. Would save taxpayers a boatload. But the ones to suffer would be the children.

Superintendent is a politician that knows his job is dictated by the school board and therefore his constituents.

Just because he said something emphatically doesn’t make it true. If he said the sky is green is that any different?

For both: I find it ironic that we are online debating whether kids can learn online, yet we come online to get information about the Gamecocks, learn how to fix things, life hacks, etc…..So we learn plenty online but do not think enough of our children to believe that they can learn that way.

As for the needing less teachers part, that’s not exactly true. You can bump the numbers up a little in a virtual classroom but at the end of the day the virtual teacher is still doing everything an in person teacher is doing in their classrooms and teachers can only have so many kids per class.

 

[Lurker123]

But the ones to suffer would be the children.

At the multiple schools where my children go (anecdotal, I admit) there was a lot of talk about catching up from the time spent virtually learning.

Maybe part of that could be blamed on ot being thrust upon people with little preparation.

I could post articles that corroborate that, but since it's a political football now, I'm sure there are many opposing points of view put forth as fact that can be linked ad nauseum.

 

[Lurker123]

So by your thought that in person is better for everyone means that anyone in person would far exceed anyone that is virtual.

That is faulty logic. There are always outliers, and spreads in data.

This sounds like when my sister gets mad that I say men are stronger, and better fighters/athletes.. Her counter is that I would not want to fight a female mma fighter.

One is a general stat, based on averages, the other is not.

 

[Gamecockben1979]

Well, you are certainly free to your opinion as well, that does not make you right either.

Neither being valedictorian (since all kids are affected), nor reading above grade level (as you point out, child's drive, parent involvement over the long term) really preclude virtual being a negative impact.

And social reasons are also quite important as well, not to be dismissed.

I agree the child's success has more to do with the child's and parents drive and input. But eliminating individual cases, it is not beneficial to the student population as a whole.

We don’t usually find common ground but the one thing I would hope we could agree on is that both models should exist to help the greatest number of children.

Some people need to be in person. I get that and respect that. That doesn’t mean that virtual has no place or that some kids are not thriving in the virtual environment.

It doesn’t have to be an either/or scenario. Schools can and should offer both. While most tend to see socialization as a reason to back in person, there are many kids that choose virtual because there are less distractions, bullying, social anxiety, etc…in a virtual classroom. The interesting thing is few people in this state speak up for those kids.

 

[Neanderthal]

I do believe this country has to figure out how they want to proceed. I believe that there is a growing population in this country that is fed up with the crap from the far left and the far right. It’s just a matter of time before a legitimate third party emerges in this country and it is long overdue.

We missed that boat. The 2020 election was the perfect time to present a 3rd party (moderates, not the extremists on either end) to the country. With a good leader, they would have been elected. But no good leaders want to run. They can live a good life without the media hounding them at every turn, twisting their words, taking their words out of context and actually listening. As long as the media is not held accountable, we will get these so-called leaders that want to look after their own a$$e$ and their in-crowd while screwing the country. That boat may come around again in 2022, but I see no real leaders stepping forward. Same ‘ol.

 

[Lurker123]

We don’t usually find common ground but the one thing I would hope we could agree on is that both models should exist to help the greatest number of children.

I could agree to that. As I said in the other post, there is a spread to any data set. One size rarely fits all.

 

[Gamecock Jacque]

Just because he said something emphatically doesn’t make it true.

Their test scores said emphatically that it WAS true and the main reason he vetoed it, had nothing to do with socialization or anything else. I'm sure a certain few did okay with it but he has a district of hundreds of thousands of kids to worry about.

 

[Gamecockben1979]

Their test scores said emphatically that it WAS true and the main reason he vetoed it, had nothing to do with socialization or anything else. I'm sure a certain few did okay with it but he has a district of hundreds of thousands of kids to worry about.

School districts now more than ever are tied to their school report cards. I’ve seen a lot of evils done to make them look better. I’ve been asked to change grades that kids did not earn just to boost graduation rate. Many states, including SC scrapped end of course tests in 2020. Some counted them in 2021 (SC at a lower portion) and others did not. Any data where students knew a test would not count is flawed to begin with, as there is zero motivation to do well. I’ll look into that and if you have any articles to link I’d surely be interested in it.

Most of those teachers from March 2020 were asked to create their curriculum online with no notice, training and very little guidance from their district. As virtual education has evolved, it is much more accountable now than it was in March 2020. Now they have facial recognition data, can tell if the students are looking down or walk away from the computer and what web sites they are accessing. In fact with these programs you could argue that these virtual students are monitored much more closely than their in person peers without it.

 

[Gamecockben1979]

Their test scores said emphatically that it WAS true and the main reason he vetoed it, had nothing to do with socialization or anything else. I'm sure a certain few did okay with it but he has a district of hundreds of thousands of kids to worry about.

Seems like he had a change of heart according to the article below. In the article he acknowledges that some students were successful virtually. If he’s completely honest he doesn’t care about losing these students to other private schools and virtual schools because he cares about the kids. He cares because for each student that walks, his district stands to lose a substantial amount of money.

Also, Texas tried to strong arm the districts by saying they would not fund both virtual and in person. However, districts figured out that if a certain number of kids left because they did not offer virtual, they would lose more money from the state by not having the students. Thus many of your larger districts have offered a virtual option.

CBS Texas - Breaking Local News, First Alert Weather & I-Team Investigations

Latest breaking news from CBS11 KTVT-TV | KTXA-TV.

dfw.cbslocal.com

 

[Gamecockben1979]

GCBen. When given a choice. How many kids in your class wear mask when not mandated. To say they don’t care is 1000% wrong. If they didn’t care they would wear them out after school. Anywhere it’s not Mandated , very few wear them. So to say the majority don’t care is a personal narrative.

zoom class is definitely safer but no way is it better. I don’t intend to change your mind. The fact that you or others believe zoom is better or could be better than in person learning is usually when I kindly bail out of any conversation. We can agree that my perception of importance of in person learning is different from yours. And that is ok. Carry on.
Enjoy your banter

I’m not dodging your question but it’s a difficult one to accurately answer. The reason being is that it varies by class. Plus it’s a new semester. Some of the kids also had to wear a mask after an exposure if they wanted to stay in school. We have had kids sent home for being identified as a Covid close contact and still refusing to wear a mask despite that being a condition for not being quarantined, which are obviously putting their teachers and classmates at risk.

I’d estimate that right now 20-30% wear them regularly. Last year the number was significantly higher. The number sometimes rises when there are outbreaks or known exposures in class. Sometimes it’s less in classes that haven’t had an exposure. And by no means do I believe my classes are a big enough sample size to make any generalizations about mask wearing in school in general.

 

[section907]

G Ben. 1000% wrong. I will say YOU are 1000% wrong about zoom learning vs in person. Wish u the best in your teaching career. My 2 cents. Parents should wake up and see why certain schools are better then others.
The good ones cost money, but if your opinion is true for public schools. Then enough said. Education matters.

btw. Lol. Varies by class. Comment. It only took 3 post to bring that view point out.

I’m out. I choose not to go down your rabbit hole

good day !

Go Gamecocks.

Ps. I went to public schools. N. Chas and Bonds Wilson. I’m not buying the class card. JS. 👀👀👍

 

[Gamecock Jacque]

Seems like he had a change of heart according to the article below.

Yes, that is interesting. Because I did see him say what I said he said on the news back in August or there abouts. I admit I don't follow public education much since my children are grown but apparently the state legislature decided to fund "stand alone" virtual learning for two years. I did notice that the very first line in the article you linked acknowledged virtual learning was a disaster. Kind of ironic.

DALLAS (CBSDFW.COM) – Online learning– a disaster for most students, but a lifeline for a few. So Dallas ISD school leaders want that few to have that option.

 

[Gamecockben1979]

Yes, that is interesting. Because I did see him say what I said he said on the news back in August or there abouts. I admit I don't follow public education much since my children are grown but apparently the state legislature decided to fund "stand alone" virtual learning for two years. I did notice that the very first line in the article you linked acknowledged virtual learning was a disaster. Kind of ironic.

DALLAS (CBSDFW.COM) – Online learning– a disaster for most students, but a lifeline for a few. So Dallas ISD school leaders want that few to have that option.

I didn’t worry about that because it’s actually an example of poor journalism. It’s an opinion injected into a “news article” with absolutely no facts to back it up.

It’s why many don’t trust the mass media today. Rarely is a story written without injecting personal bias, whether it is from the left or the right.

 

[Gamecockben1979]

G Ben. 1000% wrong. I will say YOU are 1000% wrong about zoom learning vs in person. Wish u the best in your teaching career. My 2 cents. Parents should wake up and see why certain schools are better then others.
The good ones cost money, but if your opinion is true for public schools. Then enough said. Education matters.

btw. Lol. Varies by class. Comment. It only took 3 post to bring that view point out.

I’m out. I choose not to go down your rabbit hole

good day !

Go Gamecocks.

Ps. I went to public schools. N. Chas and Bonds Wilson. I’m not buying the class card. JS. 👀👀👍

Well you are not tagging me in your posts or replying to my responses so I do not see them right away unless I read through the thread. We can disagree about zoom vs in person. The world will go on.

Why is it funny that it varies by class? Some classes have more guys, some have more girls, some are more white, some are more black, some are lower level and some are higher level. It’s true public education. I think you misunderstood what I meant by “class”.

 

[Gamecock Jacque]

I didn’t worry about that because it’s actually an example of poor journalism. It’s an opinion injected into a “news article” with absolutely no facts to back it up.

It’s why many don’t trust the mass media today. Rarely is a story written without injecting personal bias, whether it is from the left or the right.

Yeah, journalism used to be the facts, who, what, when and how. Fox News started out that way with the slogan "we report, you decide" but then they discovered their niche audience and began to pander to them like CNN panders to the hundreds that still watch them. OAN is like the old Fox News but the production quality is not the same, don't have the same money.

 

[Dizzy01]

We missed that boat. The 2020 election was the perfect time to present a 3rd party (moderates, not the extremists on either end) to the country. With a good leader, they would have been elected. But no good leaders want to run. They can live a good life without the media hounding them at every turn, twisting their words, taking their words out of context and actually listening. As long as the media is not held accountable, we will get these so-called leaders that want to look after their own a$$e$ and their in-crowd while screwing the country. That boat may come around again in 2022, but I see no real leaders stepping forward. Same ‘ol.

I think that opportunity was gone long before 2020. I know people love to just say “the media” but each of the cable programs especially are just providing what viewers want. It’s why there is essentially no news on any of the channels and they are all opinion shows. The problem is that people either can’t or don’t want to understand the difference between the two.

Keep in mind leading up to 2020 is when we saw people bragging about ratings being higher than anyone else while complaining about mass media. We also the rise of other alternative sources of opinion program as people decided that what was previously considered extreme views became too centric and a mass run for these alternative sources because one of the channels dared to provide factual information on election night. As all of these channels started catering to the “extremist” all they did was normalize it and as people listened to crap day in and day out you just beat down the moderates.

For all the good the internet has provided the damage it’s caused by increasing people’s access to utter bullshit is probably irreparable at this point. There was a time when people simply avoided the local crazy but now they start up a website and people think it must be legit because they saw it online.

 

[Gamecockben1979]

Yeah, journalism used to be the facts, who, what, when and how. Fox News started out that way with the slogan "we report, you decide" but then they discovered their niche audience and began to pander to them like CNN panders to the hundreds that still watch them. OAN is like the old Fox News but the production quality is not the same, don't have the same money.

I’m with you on journalism. I hate watching CNN or the Today Show and seeing the obvious bias to the left. I hate watching Fox and seeing the obvious bias to the right. I think there are a few individual journalists in these organizations trying to practice journalistic integrity, but the “stars” of these news organizations all walk the company line.

 

[Gamecockben1979]

I think that opportunity was gone long before 2020. I know people love to just say “the media” but each of the cable programs especially are just providing what viewers want. It’s why there is essentially no news on any of the channels and they are all opinion shows. The problem is that people either can’t or don’t want to understand the difference between the two.

Keep in mind leading up to 2020 is when we saw people bragging about ratings being higher than anyone else while complaining about mass media. We also the rise of other alternative sources of opinion program as people decided that what was previously considered extreme views became too centric and a mass run for these alternative sources because one of the channels dared to provide factual information on election night. As all of these channels started catering to the “extremist” all they did was normalize it and as people listened to crap day in and day out you just beat down the moderates.

For all the good the internet has provided the damage it’s caused by increasing people’s access to utter bullshit is probably irreparable at this point. There was a time when people simply avoided the local crazy but now they start up a website and people think it must be legit because they saw it online.

I think you’re right that the roots probably go back to the 1990s. I don’t think things were as polarizing in the 80s as Ronald Reagan was able to achieve a landslide victory and seemingly work with people on both sides of the aisle….while still taking light hearted shots at Democrats publicly.

I think the 90s with Bill Clinton’s impeachment and the election of 2000 probably paved the way for the divisive partisan politics we have today.

It’s really sad because after the tragic events of 9/11, I had hope this country would come together and work together. It did temporarily, but any working together across party lines that occurred then is a distant memory now.

 

[Flameout12]

....but the “stars” of these news organizations all walk the company line.

...tabloid media: ratings = $$.
Wouldn't surprise me to find all these media sources are all in cahoots...like a media version of WWE.

 

[section907]

Gc ben. I’m pretty sure I understood your class comment. Your questioning it. Worked. I m responding.

class was not an issue until u 🙋🏿‍♂️raised it 👍. Later. Pos.

I corrected it for u. Good day sir. Pos.

 

[Gamecockben1979]

Gc ben. I’m pretty sure I understood your class comment. Your questioning it. Worked. I m responding.

class was not an issue until raised it. Later. Pos.

Based on your sentence structure it’s quite possible you misinterpreted it. I can only hope it’s alcohol related.

 

[GoCocksFight2021]

Strong students are going to get it done no matter the format. It's the average, and especially the below average, students that are going to be disproportionally affected negatively.

 

[section907]

I see you. Lol. Gcben 👍👍🏻👍🏼👍🏾😂👍🏼😂👍🏼👍🏿

 

[Gamecockben1979]

I see you. Lol. Gcben 👍👍🏻👍🏼👍🏾😂👍🏼😂👍🏼👍🏿

You’re a good dude and a good sport. Even if we don’t see eye to eye I enjoy reading your perspective.

 

[DeeDave]

Exactly. Let’s pretend for a second what the other side said is true. I’m trying to brain wash kids and spread liberal propaganda.

For the purpose of making my job easier I think I would start my brainwashing by getting kids to turn in their school work. However, despite my best efforts I have failed miserably in that “brainwashing” attempt.

agree.

My wife is a teacher. I sometimes joke around with her that she's brainwashing her kids. It's like a running joke at our house.

She always responds that she wishes she could brainwash them because then they'd turn in their work so she wouldn't have to call or email a whole bunch of parents each week begging them to get their child to complete their work.

That brainwashing doesn't work so well. LOL

 

[cocks rule]

Dude, these guys aren’t patriots - they’re Canadian Q-anon. Just another fringe group trying to scream the loudest at the behest of one political party or another.

Dude I don’t care what they are I’m for the message.

 

[cocks rule]

Never stated that Biden is blameless. I’m not a talking parrot for either side. But surely you understand how blocking a road puts the other 90% of truckers unable to do their job and the effects that has on the supply chain. You my friend cannot spin that as well.

Spin what? Do whatever you have to do to break the power grab or we are all gonna be slaves. I can sacrifice a few Amazon orders for stopping government mandates

 

[ToddFlanders]

We missed that boat. The 2020 election was the perfect time to present a 3rd party (moderates, not the extremists on either end) to the country. With a good leader, they would have been elected. But no good leaders want to run. They can live a good life without the media hounding them at every turn, twisting their words, taking their words out of context and actually listening. As long as the media is not held accountable, we will get these so-called leaders that want to look after their own a$$e$ and their in-crowd while screwing the country. That boat may come around again in 2022, but I see no real leaders stepping forward. Same ‘ol.

Actually, 2016 was the perfect time. I voted for Gary Johnson to get to that magical 5% of votes to get funding for the next election. That ended with Trump - who I actually thought at the time wouldn't be so partisan given his background. I was wrong.

But Trump never happens without Johnson. So that will keep a lot of moderates from voting 3rd party again.

 

[thebittertruth]

Actually, 2016 was the perfect time. I voted for Gary Johnson to get to that magical 5% of votes to get funding for the next election. That ended with Trump - who I actually thought at the time wouldn't be so partisan given his background. I was wrong.

But Trump never happens without Johnson. So that will keep a lot of moderates from voting 3rd party again.

It can and will eventually happen, and we'll be better off for it. But how does Trump never happen without Johnson?

 

[Lurker123]

It can and will eventually happen, and we'll be better off for it. But how does Trump never happen without Johnson?

Not him, but I'd wager its about the 3rd party votes splitting the votes for Hillary. A very small number would have turned that election.

IF they would have mostly voted for her.

 

[SILVERSPUR-rier]

Actually, 2016 was the perfect time. I voted for Gary Johnson to get to that magical 5% of votes to get funding for the next election. That ended with Trump - who I actually thought at the time wouldn't be so partisan given his background. I was wrong.

But Trump never happens without Johnson. So that will keep a lot of moderates from voting 3rd party again.

I would go back to 1992 when Ross Perot was leading both George HW Bush and Bill Clinton in many polls. WSJ poll He was the first recent 3rd party candidate who had a legitimate shot before he made the stupid move to withdraw. Unfortunately, without having any control over congress, it is doubtful very little would have gotten done.

 

[ToddFlanders]

It can and will eventually happen, and we'll be better off for it. But how does Trump never happen without Johnson?

Trump's margin of victory in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016 was due to third party voting. In all three states in 2020 the third party voting went down by well over 50% and the votes for the big 2 followed accordingly.

I do hope for a third party - but fear that it can't happen as long as extreme candidates are put forward by either side. Moderates don't like the extremes.

 

[thebittertruth]

Trump's margin of victory in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016 was due to third party voting. In all three states in 2020 the third party voting went down by well over 50% and the votes for the big 2 followed accordingly.

I do hope for a third party - but fear that it can't happen as long as extreme candidates are put forward by either side. Moderates don't like the extremes.

I think only Michigan would've went to Clinton if there were no third party candidates on the ballot. The margin was less than 10,000, and Jill Stein got over 51,000 votes. Of those Stein voters, most would've voted for Clinton if they still decided to cast a vote.

The man that should really hate third parties is Al Gore. The presence of Ralph Nader on that Florida ballot is what cost him the 2000 election. The margin with Bush was 537, and Nader received almost 100,000 votes. It makes you think how our country would be different, good or bad, had Gore won.

 

[Gamecock Jacque]

I think only Michigan would've went to Clinton if there were no third party candidates on the ballot. The margin was less than 10,000, and Jill Stein got over 51,000 votes. Of those Stein voters, most would've voted for Clinton if they still decided to cast a vote.

The man that should really hate third parties is Al Gore. The presence of Ralph Nader on that Florida ballot is what cost him the 2000 election. The margin with Bush was 537, and Nader received almost 100,000 votes. It makes you think how our country would be different, good or bad, had Gore won.

The last time I voted FOR someone was Reagan. Since then I've had to choose what I thought was the lesser of two evils. I want someone who believes that we are in fact a Constitutional Republic. Would that person be considered a moderate? Seems today if one believes in the constitution and bill of rights they are considered to be crazy.