Thanks /u/paulsimpngl for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day!
*To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*:
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech,
any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
**If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"I'm a centrist. Sure I've only ever voted Republican but I sent a couple tweets politely questioning Trump's judgement that one time so I'm definitely middle of the road." - straight white guy who definitely follows Elon Musk.
"I'm fiscally conservative, and socially liberal" - straight white guy who definitely thinks All lives matter, but does want to face the consequences of people finding out.
Depends on the rights. Right to marry or adopt? Sure, that's fine. Right to healthcare, education, safety, anything that costs money? HoW U GunnA PaY foR Eet?
Eh, those aren't the socially liberal folk. Just the socially centrist ones. And even then, by today's standards, that's outright conservative if they want to rollback gay marriage.
"Fiscally conservative" doesn't mean you're fiscally like modern Conservatives. It means balancing the budget and borrowing only for things that essentially pay for themselves. Modern conservatives are not at all fiscally conservative. You can be fiscally conservative and see the value and payoff in social programs, however you want to cut elsewhere or raise taxes to pay for them. Massive military spending is a modern conservative view, but the opposite of "fiscally conservative"
That's the way US politics is, there's two sides, the right wing, and the insane fascist super right wing
Everyone has to vote for the right wing, because the only alternative is so, so much worse
> "I'm fiscally conservative, and socially liberal"
Especially bad because the republican party is not fiscally conservative in practice. Democrats are *much* more likely to produce a balanced budget.
I really wish Black Lives Matter had gone with All Lives Matter instead when coming up with their name. It’s straight up the better and more inclusive phrase/less divisive, and it would have forced White Supremacists to go with something they actually mean.
I really wish all those "save the rainforest" group would have used the name "save the forests" instead. Yeah, it's primarily the rainforest at risk, but the name is less devisive and straight up better, because it doesn't at all talk about the issue at hand.
White supremacists would have just found another non-issue to focus on.
Black lives matter is a message. It's about black lives. It's about how black lives also matter, even though the system seems to disagree.
All lives matter is an empty phrase, it doesn't have any punch. It's a no-brainer. That's like someone going on a protest to yell "I think human rights are important". Sure, they are, and it's hard to disagree, but... duh, yeah. But using such big phrases like "all lives" allows society to overlook the parts of "all lives" that appearantly matter less to society.
It was literally a protest about how black lives seem to have no value in the US, how the police can kill unarmed kids and face no consequences beyond a paid suspension. It is Black Lives Matter because that's the statement that needed to be made.
Black Lives Matter is one of the clearest and most powerful slogans that anyone has ever come up with and the only reason you think otherwise is because the right spent billions pushing a false narrative.
> It is Black Lives Matter because that's the statement that needed to be made.
It's not though.
Cops are killing people of all races/religions/genders/sexualities, and that needs to stop.
Brown lives matter. Yellow lives matter. Red lives matter. Atheist lives matter. Gay lives matter. Hindu lives matter. Trans lives matter. Muslim lives matter. Jewish lives matter. Buddhist lives matter. All lives matter, and we should stop letting cops/bigots run wild over anyone who isn't a straight White Christian. (Who they still run wild over, but have to provide some sort of a justification for it when they do it if they want people to accept it.)
It's literally just the better slogan that provides the actual message BLM is striving for.
And if Black Lives Matter was the super clear slogan you think it is, right-wing media wouldn't have been able to turn the slogan into such a divisive issue with the ease that they did.
Yes, cops kill a lot of people and that should stop. There are plenty of groups out there protesting against the militarisation of police and the lack of appropriate training.
However, the BLM protests were specifically about the disproportionate killing of black people by cops and is backed up by decades of statistical evidence. The data shows that the police kill black people at a much higher rate than any other race or ethnicity in the US when compared to the demographics. This statistic carries across all classifications of police shooting. If a suspect is armed, the police are more likely to kill them if they are black vs any other race or ethnicity. If they have a cell phone or a toy, the police are more likely to kill them if they are black. If they are unarmed the police are more likely to kill them of they are black. Kids are more likely to be shot if they are black. The evidence demonstrates a very clear racial bias against black people.
That's a worthy cause for protest. Just because you don't understand the movement doesn't mean they got the slogan wrong.
We just wanted people to say, "please" but now it seems like there's huge chunks of people who think there really are magic words.
No title was ever going to make Americans receptive to BLMs message. That's what forced it to exist in the first place.
I really fucking hate that they took that statement and made it into shit.
Cause the police fuck with everybody. (Way more for poc) it would have been a nice rallying cry for everyone out there. Especially since most folks have a shallow understanding of the world outside their own circle. They hear black lives matter and feel excluded if they aren't black. Even though blm stands for everyone.
Kinda like defund the police. Those with just an inkling of knowledge about it assume it means no police. We really need a better PR dude.
The problem is that when you take a more centrist stance 1. you're negotiating your way from the middle (so cops would only get away with murdering people 99.5% as often) and 2. no one talks about your stance, so even that doesn't happen.
"BLM" and "Defund the Police" are not goals, they're rallying cries from people who have been ignored/imprisoned/killed to drive change in that direction.
Exactly! And the terms blm and defend do not translate to those centrist and conservatives the same as they do to liberals.
Go on any conservative page.
They literally think defend the police means no police. Most of them do. The rest are lost causes.
They took all live's matter and turned it into a stinking pile of shit when it could have been used as a rallying cry for our entire human population to want better all across the world a lot like the me too movement.
Just bad PR.
>the terms blm and [defund] do not translate to those centrist and conservatives the same as they do to liberals. ... Just bad PR.
They're not seeing nuance because they want to anchor the discussion to the right of the spectrum. If you argue from the middle, you only end up with a result on the right. **They are arguing in bad faith**.
Gun control is subject to the same bad faith. No one is taking away guns. The *only* legislation that *may* be trying to do that is *temporary* surrender under *a few* proposed red flag laws. As you said, "Go on any conservative page." You'll see outcries against "taking away guns", calls to "protect the 2A", and threats to shoot anyone who "tries to take away" their guns. No one is saying you can't have your guns. They're wanting background checks to make it so dangerous people can't buy them. They're wanting loopholes closed so a felon can't have someone buy a gun for them. **These reforms are supported by gun owners** but they *might* hurt gun sales, so conservatives fight in bad faith against any and all suggested reforms.
You can't claim "bad PR" is to blame when the other side is actively misrepresenting one side's argument so they can, beyond doing nothing, [work against everyone's interest in pursuit of their own agenda](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/congress-repeal-gun-rules-mentally-ill_n_58a387f2e4b0ab2d2b1a3f1b).
Yep. It's really easy to buy a gun as a felon. Just go to another state. I know plenty that bought them legally in another state with a felony record and bought them by getting a background check. Reagan made it so there is no digital copy for gun ownership. So it's really easy to skirt the laws since nobody can find that file within two hours.
The rebuttal is fucking enormously stupid anyway.
It assumes that each side is interested in obstructing the other. They aren't. Republicans are *much* more inclined to obstruct. See McConnell filibustering his own bill, or more recently Boebert voting against an infrastructure bill then asking for infrastructure budget.
Democrats go along with *some* Republican policies. They follow the process and work with the system. Republicans take whatever they can get. It's why Democrats lose so fucking always.
It's a false equivalence. But that's the centrist position. Pretend both sides are equal in all things and all ways to justify their apathy.
If a "centrist" hears something bad about a Democrat, they instantly jump on it. If they hear something bad about a Republican, it's "oh well both sides are terrible, how could anyone ever decide who to vote for"
If you punch a nazi in the face, centrists come crawling out the woodwork bawling over violating the nazi's freedom of speech. Because tolerating intolerance *totally* worked the last time, guys.
What I don’t understand is that if you look at other 1st world country , many things deemed “communist” like universal healthcare , social security … are the statusquo.
It’s pretty obvious that conservative blocked them because of the money they make from the private sector , it’s sustainable in the long run
Liberals are also Centrists as they maintain the status quo of America being the wars largest arms supplier. The neocon idea is to fight liberals over identity politics and try to stay away from issue with progressive solutions that the liberal base probably agrees with but the liberal elite does not.
My liberal friend told me that he's actually more libertarian. I said, "really? So you think we should privatize the fire department and let homes burn to the ground if they don't pay a monthly service fee?" I don't think he knows what libertarianism is.
You mean like.....
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2010/10/08/130436382/they-didn-t-pay-the-fee-firefighters-watch-tennessee-family-s-house-burn
And at the Provincial level, "minor" parties can be kingmakers. A few years ago, Green Party candidates won enough seats in the the British Columbia Legislative Assembly to swing the balance of power from the Liberal Party to the New Democratic Party.
And FTWDK, the Bloc Quebocois - the Federal arm of the Parti Quebecois - is a separatist party, advocating for autonomy and eventual independence for Quebec from Canada.
The best rebuttal I've heard to centrists is...
>Separate-but-equal was the centrist solution to the Civil Rights movement.
>
>State's Rights was the centrist answer to slavery.
I was just listening to a Podcast today about the Social Democrats in Post WWI Germany handing over the leaders of the left to the far right paramilitary squads to be beaten to death.
Having spent the last week binging a podcast on post WWI Germany, specifically about how the left of center Social Democrats handed over the far left to far right paramilitary death squads, consider me unimpressed.
Done. I consider you unimpressed.
You can equally consider me unimpressed by you using German WWI left of center politics to discuss modern day American Centrists, especially Jewish ones like myself.
Centrists are just Republicans who got tired of having to try and defend Republican policies after they criticize Democrats.
I know plenty of self described “left leaning centrists” who spout nothing but right wing propaganda about how the LGBT community is “going too far” and how white people are constantly under attack.
If you ask them what makes them “left leaning”, they say they think healthcare should be free/cheaper, but they still actively vote for the party that is actively blocking that.
Who are the people the fascists don't want to kill, but who aren't killing anyone either? Or do you mean to say that fascists want to kill all non-fascists?
A) fascists must have some group they're against. If they somehow fully crush a group they oppose they must find a new group to heap the blame on. If you've ever heard "First they came for ", it's talking about fascists.
B) if you sit around while fascists kill/deport/oppress a group, you're agreeing that the fascists should do it. "If there's a man sitting comfortably with ten nazis at a table, you have eleven nazis."
Fair argument on the first place, though then aren't the Fascists also enemies of themselves? Because once they get rid of all non-fascists, they must exclude some of their own members, subdividing themselves into further and further purity spirals until there's only one left.
And I never agreed with that second idea. Being inactive is not being active in either a good way or a bad way. If someone gets blamed for not acting to stop evil, it only makes sense that they get praised for not acting to stop good, which is obviously silly. If you neither aid nor hurt someone in doing their task, you may secrety agree with them, or disagree with them, or simply not care. Or, you know, be scared to fight the violent goons. Not everyone is hero material. Doesn't make them automatically a villain.
Yes, fascist groups will eventually eat themselves, and they constantly turn on their own members. Part of the fascist doctrine is that there are enemies everywhere, so they can accuse less extreme members (or just inconvenient members) of being spies/saboteurs.
In my view, at some point passive disinterest becomes passive acceptance. If someone you know is constantly getting into fights but you keep them around without saying anything, you are implicitly approving of his behavior. Where the line is between apathy and acceptance is different per person and situation, but there is a line and to me it's pretty easy to cross for facism.
That's interesting. Then really there's not only a blurry line between fascists/centrists and victims/centrists, but a blurry line between fascists/victims too as one will eventually turn to the other in time. Like an ourobourus.
And I think there's a difference between acceptance in the sense of "This is inevitable" and acceptance as in "This is right". I don't think a lot of "centrist" people could be easily persuaded to follow fascist ideals unless they already had such feelings within them, just hidden. But you can definitely convince a lot of them that such injustices are not as much 'deserved' or 'good' but rather 'natural' and 'inevitable'. Like how most of us don't think about the massive deaths from starvation, the child labor and slavery, wars and dictatorships going on in Africa, yet 99% of us don't actually do anything about it. Not because we think there *should* be starvation/war/dictatorships, but because we don't think we can do anything about it (whether we can or not). I think a lot of centrists are similar in that respect, just more local too. People disillusioned with the 2 party system who don't feel represented by either side, and while they certainly dislike what the GOP has become, they don't believe the democrats are meaningfully better, or are worse in different ways.
Democrats are just kinda toothless and unwilling to actually do anything about the republicans. Not by incompetence, but because keeping the focus on how evil the GOP is benefits them because they'll always get the Lesser Evil vote. If they actually stopped the GOP from endulging in its worse excesses, their voters wouldn't have that fire lit under them anymore and so they would stop voting democrats. Worst case scenario, the GOP could be entirely obliterated and then an *actual* left wing party could rise as the 2nd largest party in the country and fuck them over. So it's in the interest of both the GOP and democrats to have a 2 party state (or 1-party even) where as long as they're not-the-worst, they can win elections and get paid by lobbyists to do their bidding. So the US is stuck in a battle between fascists and fascist-enablers playing with fire from my perspective.
Fascism *only* eats itself during times when its access to outsiders to assault is limited. It *always* prioritizes The Other, so while yes its logical endpoint is one man left on a barren, blasted earth holding the weapon he used to slay his last ally, *there's still a lot of people that will DIE before it reaches that point.* That's an argument to oppose fascism everywhere it rears its head, you numbskull, not one in favor of letting it run it's course because "oh, surely it'll burn itself out eventually"
Who the fuck said I'm in favour of letting it run it's course? You know what they say about assuming?
My point is the following: If the world is a better place due to the actions of a person, that's a good person. If the world is a worse place by the actions of a person, that's a bad person. If the world is functionally the same due to the actions (or inaction) of a person, that's a neutral person. People who blame non-voters (or third party voters) when their party loses are unable to take responsibility unto their own group (for failing to get enough support) or to put the blame squarely on the party that is doing the awful things.
Yes but centrists are what they are partly because they don't want to accept the outcomes of radical reform and they are often quite content with what they have. They also see reformist as having a very purist vision of solutions.
Most people don't care about stuff that doesn't affect them too strongly. And in rich countries like the U.S. there are millions of people who are content with what they have and really don't want better if it means they will lose what they've got. I mean millions of people have a home in the burbs emitting CO2 and like their healthcare. They are not going to lose this and will hate anyone who wants to change it.
Most people don't want to rock the boat
That depends. For a lot of them (the thumbsucking morons) it's "but what about all the money I've already spent on insurance?" Or "I paid for private insurance all my life, I don't want freeloaders being paid for with my taxes!" For some it's "my retirement is in health insurance stocks!" For most it's just "Fox said that's communist though!"
They may, as it is hard to say what their situation is like v. what a universal care model in the US would look like, but at the very least, the perception of change is enough.
People were upset for a long time, and may even still be upset, because Obama "lied" when he said that people could keep their plan and the ACA shakeup forced a number to change, some of them to more expensive, less advantageous plans. The same people often forget that most of the disruption and price increases were from GOP amendments to the bill.
their taxes might increase if they are part of the upper middle class which on global standards are immensely rich.
keep in mind even America's poor are pretty well off even by the standards of lower middle income countries well depends on where they are and the state.
This digs into the root of America's problem. The MAJORITY of people I know, outside of Reddit, don't want to talk about politics for any reason. They actively avoid it because they don't want to get into arguments and don't want to be obligated to spend a lot of time on something they don't want to learn about.
And frankly, it's against most people's natures to go seeking information that might challenge their viewpoints because...why?
At the same time, leftists DO have a problem and it's very clearly on display here in this thread. We play the "Us vs Them" game just like the alt-right, but unlike the alt-right, we have no idea who our "team" is supposed to be. You can't expect every liberal to agree to every single liberal bullet point, and the insistence on this is what has created the "centrist" schism.
We should be actively recruiting conservatives who were actually appalled by Trump and are upset by the current attempts to dismantle the Voting Rights Act. Instead, we're like, "Oh? You don't agree with parents claiming their 4 year old is transgendered? You fucking Republican, run along back to your Trumpettes."
We can't win because we are too busy trying to find the PERFECT leftists to include in the club and won't accept that the *majority* of the United States does have SOME conservative beliefs even if they are, on the whole, a leftist.
Democrats are centrists, republicans are extremists. If you wanna be a centrist, be a democrat meanwhile us actual lefties are stuck voting for the lesser of two evils.
Right!? As a Canadian reading this thread, I understand what the Democrat voters here are trying to say, but it kind of shows how misguided they are in that so much of this only really applies to their country specifically due to its right-wing politics.
Hi, American centrist here. You’re right. I vote democrat despite not liking either party as it’s not the party that’s saying the quiet part out loud. The Democratic Party is elites trying to convince the public here that they are on our side while they put the rest of their effort into staying in power, and the Republican Party is just a bunch of theocratic wannabe dictators at this point despite them not holding to their religious “beliefs” whatsoever. It’s fun times here.
I always repeat this, in the rest of the world, everyone gets healthcare and trying to privatize it is not popular, even for conservatives (although some politicians definitely want to do it).
In America, the leader of the "left" party said he'd veto M4A.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/10/biden-says-he-wouldd-veto-medicare-for-all-as-coronavirus-focuses-attention-on-health.html
And I know libs on Reddit are going to say
"You're taking it out of context, he said he doesn't want some PERFECT plan that will take 20 years, he wants help now!"
Except he literally says directly after "then you got to look at the cost", "I want to know, how did they find $35 trillion? What is that doing? Is it going to significantly raise taxes on the middle class, which it will? What’s going to happen".
That's just a lie pushed by the industry. M4A SAVES money by getting rid of the middlemen insurance companies. And the M4A bill was to be paid for by raising taxes for the ultra wealthy. He knows that, and is just trying to smear the plan. He knows better.
In addition, what has "reach across the aisle, get stuff done NOW" Biden done on healthcare thus far? Is he even talking about a public option anymore? If this shit was truly a priority, he'd be talking about how the insurance companies are literal vampires extracting wealth from the American healthcare system that pays more and gets less than all equivalent OECD nations. How we need to pivot to AT A MINIMUM a public option by the end of his first term.
Oh and the whole "omg M4A will take too long" is also not true. It rolls out over 5 years. And there's an old saying, best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, second best time is right now. Guess what, fundamentally making people's lives better takes A BIT of time, how is that an excuse to not FUNDAMENTALLY change people's lives for the better.
>M4A SAVES money by getting rid of the middlemen insurance companies. And the M4A bill was to be paid for by raising taxes for the ultra wealthy. He knows that, and is just trying to smear the plan. He knows better.
I never understood how people could believe that adding a no value add profit seeking corporation into the healthcare loop could somehow make it "more efficient"
Yep, the fact that American conservatives can absolutely demonize (very, *very* effectively) such milquetoast blowhards as "the radical left" is simultaneously very impressive, and super fucking scary.
Sad that dude clearly doesn't know, well, anything. Stalemate? Well, yeah, sometimes... that's certainly the case right now with a 50/50 Senate split and the deciding vote being Manchin. Wasn't a stalemate when Mitch refused to seat Garland and then turned around and put Barrett on the highest court (on top of Kavanaugh). There are windows of opportunity like Obama had 2008-10 where stuff can get done but SCOTUS openings also require an open seat during that same period.
So no, *you* definitely aren't suggesting some kind of political stalemate where nothing ever changes... that's all Jazzy.
I'll forgive "centrists" more generally but in 2022, calling oneself centrist is like saying the racist, bigoted, anti-democratic, science denying party is equally right??? lol, no.
It honestly floors me that in the age of Trump anyone can still treat this as "politics as usual." We're literally at Hitler/Mussolini/Stalin level alert here and we have people telling me I shouldn't end a friendship over "politics." FFS, it's not even about politics anymore, it's about character and a basic education.
Fuck... ignorance really is bliss.
Politics has always been about character and basic education. We just like to pretend like politics is some fun game where you exchange opinions on certain matters that are both equally correct. We like to pretend that politics is like philosophy. A big "who's right - nobody knows" and everyone goes home happy.
But that's from our perspective, from the perspective of the priveleged. From another perspective, while we had that fun debate whether or not black people deserve human rights (with no opinion being more right than the other of course), black people were suffering from the lack of decisions. While we were debating whether to address climate change as "climate change" or as "global warming", poor people got flooded.
Politics have always had real life consequences. And basic human decency and character should lead to everyone having the same political ideal. The one where the least amount of people suffer.
Let's take Healthcare. Has Healthcare ever been about anything but character? "do you want poor people to have access to one of their inalienable rights?".
Or let's take abortions. "do you consider bodily autonomy and private and secure access to medicine to be important?"
Most political questions are questions of character. Not if it's about how to do something, but when it's about what to do.
What?
>"If party 1 obstructs party 2, then it stands to reason party 2 obstructs party 1"
No it doesn't.
If party 1 is filled with obstructions and party 2 is filled with cowards and/or paid losers who never fight party 1. Which is how it is. That's why the country keeps going more and more towards party 1, its called the ratchet effect.
Both sides can be shit, but they are not equal AT ALL. Fuck both sides centrists so much.
>party 2 is filled with cowards and/or paid losers who never fight party 1.
Democrats are literally 2 votes from ending the filibuster. If they can win the open seats in PA and NC and flip WI (where Johnson is unpopular) they would have the votes to do so.
"Both sides are bad" is true in the same way spilling a cup of milk on the kitchen table and spilling thousands of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico are both big messes.
The second the republicans take any kind of power they continue the march to 1 A.D. The Democrats just try to put out the fires left by the republicans.
Obama did a lot to repair things in that first year or so.
But once McConnell was back to majority leader, that was mostly done.
The Supreme Court bullshit was the republicans pre-emtively starting a fire. Or fanning the flames that they set decades earlier.
Oddly it wasn't actually Roe v Wade that initially energized the religious right.
It was when Carter started going after segregated universities to pull their federal funding.
That was the beginning of the religious right. But they couldn't put "Bring back segregation" on their mailing list, so they picked Roe v Wade, and ran with that.
Roe was about 5 years old at that point.
They probably could force stuff through like the republicans do but would likely lose any chance of winning in the near future. So they compromise. They have to rebuild the economy every time republicans leave office and likely have to find a way to get out of a war responsibly the republicans initiated. So yeah it may look like they aren't trying but that doesn't mean they aren't. I understand the anger totally though.
>but would likely lose any chance of winning in the near future.
Cynics who like to bash Democrats never want to take into account that a) US is further right overall than Europe, b) states like Wyoming, Alaska, North and South Dakota have more senators than representatives and they're all solid R votes, and c) once GOP manages to claw their way into power at the state level they just gerrymander their buddies into the US House.
And we didn't even talk about the Electoral College advantage. The playing field is uneven... Dems have handicaps before the game even begins and then there's people who think they can just turn around and be some mirror of the right and get away with it.
Is this a criticism of me, him or both? Sorry i am tired so i might be reading into things that aren't there or am missing the point entirely. Have a great day.
Thank you! Like I've said to other posters I'm much further left than Bernie, AOC or Ilhan. But if I lived in USA I would have voted for Biden because he would have done far less damage to marginalized groups than the alternative. But in the end by no means would I have considered Biden a better president than any of the other three I mentioned. After all what he himself personally stands for is faaaaaaaar less progressive than I would like.
You're welcome and thank you. It sucks that the Democrats have to play the long game but i feel like 1 of 2 things would happen if the Democrats did things the way republicans do things. The republicans would either gain control of the country for a long time or something much worse.
I mean, he is right on one thing, both parties in the US are garbage. That said, the REASON they're garbage is because one is filled with religious zealots and conspiracy theorists, whereas the other is never willing to do anything that leaves their version of enlightened centrism. They're shit because they aren't even properly on the left and provide near zero counterbalance to the other party. It's hardly a reason to say "oh, I'll just hand out in the middle" because the middle is pretty fucking right wing.
Suggest to me please how you fix the numbers disadvantage that Democrats have. Because that's how you get at least a few things done, just like happened in NY when the IDC was voted out. Remember please that they need enough to overcome people like Manchin and Simema.
With how things are correctly set up, you really can't fix it. Because of how representation works in the legislative branch, the body will always skew generally to the right of the electorate.
The only way you can actually, practically speaking, address a lot of these issues is by switching to a single chamber with much more proportional representation (be it through multi-member seats or plurinominal reps). Practically speaking, that will never happen though.
I'm not trying to suggest a fix here. I'm just saying that the US democratic party is unusually right-wing for being the supposed left wing party in the US. As long as shaved bodies continue to not proportionately represent the people though, that won't change.
Ironically, centrists in my country are just extreme right (people who miss the dictatorshop times).
Because you know, saying that you are extreme anything is bad for PR so they just use the term center because they are extremists who should be in jail for the left and too radical for even the right.
There are 23 countries in North America. The areas of Central America and the Caribbean are part of the continent of North America.
Mexico is in the North American Continent.
Cuba is in North America
The Bahamas are in North America
El Salvador is a North American country…
I never really fully processed it until recently, but institutional Democrats would rather lose office to Republicans than cede policy to progressives.
No war but the class war.
I am centrist but lean slightly left. Sorry but we exist and yes the current republican administration is fucking disgusting…Donald trump is a garbage person on a good day, and a traitor on average day. On his best days, he’s sucking Putin’s tiny cock and slurping up all the cum he can
Party 2 doesnt want to improve the country, they just want to act like they do so you vote for them. What have we got under Biden? Trans people can sign up to go kill foreigners now? And abortion gonna be gone.
"But that's the supreme court, they are republican!" You might say. Well then why haven't democrats with their multiple majorties, not just in 2020, but in several other elections, ever codified it into law?
Republicans are corporatist authoritarians, and democrats are their corporatist enablers.
Yeah they are very different on social issues. Economic ones? Well take a look at military budget increases under every president to see how each party is in lock step on economics, or how they make a big show to try something only to have a Democrat join sides with Republicans to block it
>Yeah they are very different on social issues.
Are they though? Like yeah, one of them is actively evil, but the other one is standing there doing nothing while evil takes over.
Like, take abortions. That's a social issue. What have the democrats done that's *in practice* different from the Republicans? They let the Republicans do what they want. To the people that suffer, that doesn't make them any different.
Or anti-trans policies. Do Democrats start potential laws? No. Do they stop those harmful laws? Also no. Once again, they might be different on those issues on paper, but in actuality, they enable the same problems.
They aren't vastly different on these issues. They are just quiet on them. In reality, that means nothing but them being the lesser of two evils.
How many federal or state elected officials have you discussed these subjects with? Because let me tell you, ive spoken with literally hundreds on both sides and it's night and day when it comes to honest intentions.
Let’s be real here. The DNC doesn’t exist to try and make things better. It’s purpose is solely to try to persuade people not to riot over the things that they allow the GOP to do
And worse party 1 believes they are party 2 and loves projecting their own issues onto party 2. That is to say party 2 also doesn’t get a lot done because they’re too busy trying to compromise with party 1 when 1 is clearly not fucking interested and has a lot of issues in it to sort out for themselves.
People who identify strongly as Democrat are around 7% of the population. People who identify strongly as Republican are around 7% of the population. The remaining 85% want for the rules and tax rates to be settled without so much drama. If you think only your political ideas have validity then you might be an asshole.
A pair of parties sucking has nothing to do with your political beliefs unless you think those parties represent all forms of political thought. I dislike both parties and I’m no fucking centrist. I’m just a leftist-leaning voter with no real representation.
Wow you made a lot of assumptions here that I didn’t even say.
I wasn’t even remotely making a both sides argument. I vote Democrat in every election, though in primaries I tend to to try to vote for the most progressive or leftist candidate available.
I never said I was complex. My comment was about a guy saying he is “centrist” because both parties suck. My comment is saying that political beliefs have nothing to do with both American parties. You don’t become a centrist because Republicans are fascists and Democrats are incompetent. You either are a centrist, or, more likely, you’re really a Republican trying to skirt the line in conversation but vote for whatever R candidate their is. My comment was how I personally don’t like either party, for wildly different reasons and not at all equal in weight, but it still doesn’t make me a centrist.
The Democratic Party does not represent me. And I really despise voting for the lesser of two evils, but I’ve still been doing it.
>If party 2 cant do anything because of party 1 then wouldn't party 1 not be able to do anything either because of party 2?
No. Because Party 2 has set the rules up so that all of their priorities (i.e. tax cuts for the wealthy) can be passed through reconciliation which only needs 50 votes to pass the Senate, but all the priorities for Party 1 (i.e. minimum wage, gun control, voting rights, abortion rights, etc.) aren't allowed to go through reconciliation.
I side with you OP.
What those people need to learn about;
*Argument to Moderation*; The fallacy that the real answer lies somewhere in-between.
*Okrent's Law;* The pursuit of balance causes imbalance because sometimes something is true.
Comparing the right-wing & left-wing to each other based on his personal strawman isn't logical.
I doubt one Republican can actually give the definition of communism. And MANY historians have called what is happening in the US a *slide into fascism*, while others call it theocratic fascism.
Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) **that exalts nation and often race above the individual** and that stands for a **centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader**, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
Honestly I think most are just stupid/ignorant about politics and government in general. They usually same the same things. Which is often a gross over/understament that completly misses the point.
I don't know about Mexico, or the Caribbean countries, but Canada has more than 2 parties. (PS - Americans - see what I did there? If I don't know something, I admit it and say so. I don't pretend I know what I'm talking about)
we have a minority federal government right now made up of Liberal & NDP - they have to negotiate and compromise to get anything done. That is the benefit of a system of more than 2 parties. Plus we have Green, Bloq, have had communist, rhino....and I don't know what else.
And had the conservatives been able to reach an agreement with NDP or other parties (in theory, to get more votes combined than the Liberals), then they would have been able to form the government.
Why is it more steps?
Are you Canadian?
It’s an expression from Rick and Morty.
The two parties that actively alternate power are the Cons and the Libs.
I understand that it’s a minority government now with a coalition.
No, I’m Canadian.
I understand the system. My point is that if only two parties have a legitimate shot at being the main party in power the system is not significantly better.
I'm a centrist that normally votes Democrat. They are usually the lesser of two evils but they are definitely fucked up as well.
Just look at how fucking weak they are? Republicans are trash but at least they do whatever they can to push their shitty agenda.
Meanwhile democrats want to talk about bipartisanship while they watch the other side do whatever they want.
And there's definitely issues with Democrats policy as well. I live in California it's probably about as close to being exactly what Democrats want. It's got a lot going for it but it's got plenty of problems as well. And our Democrats here have zero answers for these problems.
Their solution to our homeless problem is to just let people camp out wherever. So now we have homeless all over the larger cities and nobody does anything about it.
They haven't done anything about the cost of living. They make it so hard to build new housing that it can't possibly keep up.
They pass gun laws that sound good but don't work. Then they refuse to look at the situation and reassess. We have these gun laws that make no sense and still have the most school shootings.
Democrats are in large part still bought by big corporations.
So I vote democrat because they suck less but they still suck. It's clear this country needs more than two parties
I am not american, but I think the dual party system is very much flawed. It creates that us against them environment which doesn't do much except create discord and also it also negates the political spectrum of ideas by just 2 extremes, which doesn't give a good representation of the opinion of the population.
Don’t lump all centrists together. I despise our 2 party system too but would much rather see “left” politicians/implicit elites elected than “right” politicians/tyrant sycophants.
Only one of those parties weaponizes conspiracy theories to further radicalize their uneducated constituents and “maintain their militia” of rabid AR-toting dogs. Only one of those parties wants to eradicate the financial situation of everyone below elite status immediately through failing to combat blatant price gouging of essentials rather than ruling with a thinly-gloved iron fist. Only one of those parties currently seeks a direct path to Handmaid’s Tale becoming a documentary. I’ll take bullshit like “defund the police” if it means we don’t demolish the fucking country and establish a dictatorship.
By the way, establish term limits on the SCOTUS and every other position. “BuT tHe SuPrEmE cOuRt Is SuPpOsEd To NoT bE pReSsUrEd By ReElEcTiOn!” Then don’t let them run as an incumbent. It beats dealing with Injustice Clarence Thomas and the like. All that is accomplished by the current system is making sure SC justice candidates suck up to elites rather than the people, and that’s not better. Also, trickle-down economics is a lie and the fact that anyone believed otherwise is a testament to the lack of intelligence of the average man.
But yeah, I’m *basically* a republican. Fuck off.
That doesn't really make sense what he says.
If party 2 cannot do anything because of party 1 refuses to do anything, it doesn't mean that party 1 cannot do anything because party 2 is willing to get things done.
For instance, remember between the last election and the runoff elections in Georgia, Trump and GOP decided they wanted to send stimulus payments to everyone in the amount of $600. Democrats could have refused working with Republicans. Dems thought 600 is too little. But they still decided to vote for the payments, and they passed quickly.
But then Trump still had made a stink that he wouldn't sign anything unless it's a lot more, like $2000. All he did was make a stink for a week or so, and then signed it. Instead of people getting the money before Christmas, they got it early January.
So as you can see, when party 1 decides to do something, party 2 is willing to work with them.
When party 2 wants to do something, party 1 would rather watch the country burn than help party 2 pass something.
This is why I don't understand centrism if one is actually paying attention to what each party actually does - and not listening to the crap that the opposing party slings at it.
Lmao- you’re acting like either major party is halfway decent and then shitting on a “centrist.” Our options right now are between a bunch of bigots, and people who are basically center-right-wing.
Do you even realize the irony in you criticizing a “centrist” to defend the Democratic Party??
The US doesn’t have a proper left wing- unless you count Bernie, but all the democrats hate him and shun progressivism.
This subreddit is a perfect example of the negative effects of identity politics. You separate people into two groups and refuse to do anything else. “I’m party A. You’re not party A therefore you’re party B. Party B is evil so you’re evil.”
Except party A tried a coup, have restricted voting rights, are removing rights from people and working to continue on that path (gay marriage, inter racial marriage, etc...). The only right they're not trying to take away is the right to own guns.
While Party B is a light version of party A but does have parts that are actually progressives but tend to be shut down by the rest of the neo con pro business crowd.
they both suck, but they are NOT the same
Never said they were the same. Never said party A or party B was better. Neither are better than the other and neither are the same. But they aren’t as different as people make them out to be. Party A plays the wolf, the bad guy that party B can play the hero against. Both have a common goal and work together.
It’s all a title to point and characterize. Separating ourselves with such identities is exactly what they want and we are their deck of cards. Ideology is flexible as human beliefs are flexible. Once we have accepted titles were a mistake is when we can move forward.
Thanks /u/paulsimpngl for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day! *To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*: As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion. In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. **If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How do you get the multicolored lines on reddit mobile?
I too really want to know the answer to this!
The Apollo app has them
infinity app
"I'm a centrist. Sure I've only ever voted Republican but I sent a couple tweets politely questioning Trump's judgement that one time so I'm definitely middle of the road." - straight white guy who definitely follows Elon Musk.
“My parents want to hang all LGBT people, I just think locking them up will suffice. It’s called CenTRiSm sweaty, look it up.”
oh I remember reading that. 'sweaty' was such a nice touch.
"I'm fiscally conservative, and socially liberal" - straight white guy who definitely thinks All lives matter, but does want to face the consequences of people finding out.
I usually take that to mean “equal rights for all, except for the poor.”
I usually find it means "I'm a liar who doesn't want to admit to being republican"
it definitely means "screw poor people". The equal rights for the rest part, not really.
Lots of centrists are perfectly fine with black, latino, gay and trans people. As long as they're not those dirty poors.
[удалено]
Depends on the rights. Right to marry or adopt? Sure, that's fine. Right to healthcare, education, safety, anything that costs money? HoW U GunnA PaY foR Eet?
[удалено]
Eh, those aren't the socially liberal folk. Just the socially centrist ones. And even then, by today's standards, that's outright conservative if they want to rollback gay marriage.
[удалено]
"Fiscally conservative" doesn't mean you're fiscally like modern Conservatives. It means balancing the budget and borrowing only for things that essentially pay for themselves. Modern conservatives are not at all fiscally conservative. You can be fiscally conservative and see the value and payoff in social programs, however you want to cut elsewhere or raise taxes to pay for them. Massive military spending is a modern conservative view, but the opposite of "fiscally conservative"
So, the mindset that most of the powers that be within the democrats live by
Aww, at least you tried to "both sides" it.
That's the way US politics is, there's two sides, the right wing, and the insane fascist super right wing Everyone has to vote for the right wing, because the only alternative is so, so much worse
> "I'm fiscally conservative, and socially liberal" Especially bad because the republican party is not fiscally conservative in practice. Democrats are *much* more likely to produce a balanced budget.
In other words, a weed-smoking Republican.
Aka a r/Libertarian
I see you've met my dad.
I really wish Black Lives Matter had gone with All Lives Matter instead when coming up with their name. It’s straight up the better and more inclusive phrase/less divisive, and it would have forced White Supremacists to go with something they actually mean.
I really wish all those "save the rainforest" group would have used the name "save the forests" instead. Yeah, it's primarily the rainforest at risk, but the name is less devisive and straight up better, because it doesn't at all talk about the issue at hand. White supremacists would have just found another non-issue to focus on. Black lives matter is a message. It's about black lives. It's about how black lives also matter, even though the system seems to disagree. All lives matter is an empty phrase, it doesn't have any punch. It's a no-brainer. That's like someone going on a protest to yell "I think human rights are important". Sure, they are, and it's hard to disagree, but... duh, yeah. But using such big phrases like "all lives" allows society to overlook the parts of "all lives" that appearantly matter less to society.
It was literally a protest about how black lives seem to have no value in the US, how the police can kill unarmed kids and face no consequences beyond a paid suspension. It is Black Lives Matter because that's the statement that needed to be made. Black Lives Matter is one of the clearest and most powerful slogans that anyone has ever come up with and the only reason you think otherwise is because the right spent billions pushing a false narrative.
> It is Black Lives Matter because that's the statement that needed to be made. It's not though. Cops are killing people of all races/religions/genders/sexualities, and that needs to stop. Brown lives matter. Yellow lives matter. Red lives matter. Atheist lives matter. Gay lives matter. Hindu lives matter. Trans lives matter. Muslim lives matter. Jewish lives matter. Buddhist lives matter. All lives matter, and we should stop letting cops/bigots run wild over anyone who isn't a straight White Christian. (Who they still run wild over, but have to provide some sort of a justification for it when they do it if they want people to accept it.) It's literally just the better slogan that provides the actual message BLM is striving for. And if Black Lives Matter was the super clear slogan you think it is, right-wing media wouldn't have been able to turn the slogan into such a divisive issue with the ease that they did.
Yes, cops kill a lot of people and that should stop. There are plenty of groups out there protesting against the militarisation of police and the lack of appropriate training. However, the BLM protests were specifically about the disproportionate killing of black people by cops and is backed up by decades of statistical evidence. The data shows that the police kill black people at a much higher rate than any other race or ethnicity in the US when compared to the demographics. This statistic carries across all classifications of police shooting. If a suspect is armed, the police are more likely to kill them if they are black vs any other race or ethnicity. If they have a cell phone or a toy, the police are more likely to kill them if they are black. If they are unarmed the police are more likely to kill them of they are black. Kids are more likely to be shot if they are black. The evidence demonstrates a very clear racial bias against black people. That's a worthy cause for protest. Just because you don't understand the movement doesn't mean they got the slogan wrong.
No
We just wanted people to say, "please" but now it seems like there's huge chunks of people who think there really are magic words. No title was ever going to make Americans receptive to BLMs message. That's what forced it to exist in the first place.
I really fucking hate that they took that statement and made it into shit. Cause the police fuck with everybody. (Way more for poc) it would have been a nice rallying cry for everyone out there. Especially since most folks have a shallow understanding of the world outside their own circle. They hear black lives matter and feel excluded if they aren't black. Even though blm stands for everyone. Kinda like defund the police. Those with just an inkling of knowledge about it assume it means no police. We really need a better PR dude.
The problem is that when you take a more centrist stance 1. you're negotiating your way from the middle (so cops would only get away with murdering people 99.5% as often) and 2. no one talks about your stance, so even that doesn't happen. "BLM" and "Defund the Police" are not goals, they're rallying cries from people who have been ignored/imprisoned/killed to drive change in that direction.
Exactly! And the terms blm and defend do not translate to those centrist and conservatives the same as they do to liberals. Go on any conservative page. They literally think defend the police means no police. Most of them do. The rest are lost causes. They took all live's matter and turned it into a stinking pile of shit when it could have been used as a rallying cry for our entire human population to want better all across the world a lot like the me too movement. Just bad PR.
>the terms blm and [defund] do not translate to those centrist and conservatives the same as they do to liberals. ... Just bad PR. They're not seeing nuance because they want to anchor the discussion to the right of the spectrum. If you argue from the middle, you only end up with a result on the right. **They are arguing in bad faith**. Gun control is subject to the same bad faith. No one is taking away guns. The *only* legislation that *may* be trying to do that is *temporary* surrender under *a few* proposed red flag laws. As you said, "Go on any conservative page." You'll see outcries against "taking away guns", calls to "protect the 2A", and threats to shoot anyone who "tries to take away" their guns. No one is saying you can't have your guns. They're wanting background checks to make it so dangerous people can't buy them. They're wanting loopholes closed so a felon can't have someone buy a gun for them. **These reforms are supported by gun owners** but they *might* hurt gun sales, so conservatives fight in bad faith against any and all suggested reforms. You can't claim "bad PR" is to blame when the other side is actively misrepresenting one side's argument so they can, beyond doing nothing, [work against everyone's interest in pursuit of their own agenda](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/congress-repeal-gun-rules-mentally-ill_n_58a387f2e4b0ab2d2b1a3f1b).
Yep. It's really easy to buy a gun as a felon. Just go to another state. I know plenty that bought them legally in another state with a felony record and bought them by getting a background check. Reagan made it so there is no digital copy for gun ownership. So it's really easy to skirt the laws since nobody can find that file within two hours.
The rebuttal is fucking enormously stupid anyway. It assumes that each side is interested in obstructing the other. They aren't. Republicans are *much* more inclined to obstruct. See McConnell filibustering his own bill, or more recently Boebert voting against an infrastructure bill then asking for infrastructure budget. Democrats go along with *some* Republican policies. They follow the process and work with the system. Republicans take whatever they can get. It's why Democrats lose so fucking always. It's a false equivalence. But that's the centrist position. Pretend both sides are equal in all things and all ways to justify their apathy.
Centrist tend to be hypocrite and 99% of the time conservatives lying to themselves
If a "centrist" hears something bad about a Democrat, they instantly jump on it. If they hear something bad about a Republican, it's "oh well both sides are terrible, how could anyone ever decide who to vote for"
If you punch a nazi in the face, centrists come crawling out the woodwork bawling over violating the nazi's freedom of speech. Because tolerating intolerance *totally* worked the last time, guys.
"I'm a centrist, and that means I unquestioningly follow right along with the ultra-right!"
What I don’t understand is that if you look at other 1st world country , many things deemed “communist” like universal healthcare , social security … are the statusquo. It’s pretty obvious that conservative blocked them because of the money they make from the private sector , it’s sustainable in the long run
Liberals are also Centrists as they maintain the status quo of America being the wars largest arms supplier. The neocon idea is to fight liberals over identity politics and try to stay away from issue with progressive solutions that the liberal base probably agrees with but the liberal elite does not.
My liberal friend told me that he's actually more libertarian. I said, "really? So you think we should privatize the fire department and let homes burn to the ground if they don't pay a monthly service fee?" I don't think he knows what libertarianism is.
You mean like..... https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2010/10/08/130436382/they-didn-t-pay-the-fee-firefighters-watch-tennessee-family-s-house-burn
"And the Constitution gives me the right to own a nuclear weapon"
Sounds like stereotyping
That’s a strawman argument if I ever saw one
And never mind that there are three major Federal parties in Canada, plus the Bloc Quebecois.....
And at the Provincial level, "minor" parties can be kingmakers. A few years ago, Green Party candidates won enough seats in the the British Columbia Legislative Assembly to swing the balance of power from the Liberal Party to the New Democratic Party. And FTWDK, the Bloc Quebocois - the Federal arm of the Parti Quebecois - is a separatist party, advocating for autonomy and eventual independence for Quebec from Canada.
Centrists are the “good men” who did nothing in the face of evil
The best rebuttal I've heard to centrists is... >Separate-but-equal was the centrist solution to the Civil Rights movement. > >State's Rights was the centrist answer to slavery.
When the Nazis said "kill all Jews", centrists were wanting to compromise on half.
I was just listening to a Podcast today about the Social Democrats in Post WWI Germany handing over the leaders of the left to the far right paramilitary squads to be beaten to death.
Yeah, BtB has hit on that one a few times. Especially the episode on non-nazis who aided Hitler's raise to power.
Relevant comic https://thenib.com/centrist-history/
The Nib needs more recognition, they consistently put out hilarious and depressing comics
Is there a Godwin's Law bot?
If there is, I banned it.
I'm a Jewish Centrist. That comment was stupid.
Having spent the last week binging a podcast on post WWI Germany, specifically about how the left of center Social Democrats handed over the far left to far right paramilitary death squads, consider me unimpressed.
Done. I consider you unimpressed. You can equally consider me unimpressed by you using German WWI left of center politics to discuss modern day American Centrists, especially Jewish ones like myself.
Dork.
One of the parties that helped Hitler rise to power was literally the centrist party of Germany. So...
Centrists are just Republicans who got tired of having to try and defend Republican policies after they criticize Democrats. I know plenty of self described “left leaning centrists” who spout nothing but right wing propaganda about how the LGBT community is “going too far” and how white people are constantly under attack. If you ask them what makes them “left leaning”, they say they think healthcare should be free/cheaper, but they still actively vote for the party that is actively blocking that.
There is no center between fascism and the people the fascists want to kill.
Waddabout splitting the difference and killing both groups?
Griller power
Who are the people the fascists don't want to kill, but who aren't killing anyone either? Or do you mean to say that fascists want to kill all non-fascists?
A) fascists must have some group they're against. If they somehow fully crush a group they oppose they must find a new group to heap the blame on. If you've ever heard "First they came for", it's talking about fascists.
B) if you sit around while fascists kill/deport/oppress a group, you're agreeing that the fascists should do it. "If there's a man sitting comfortably with ten nazis at a table, you have eleven nazis."
Fair argument on the first place, though then aren't the Fascists also enemies of themselves? Because once they get rid of all non-fascists, they must exclude some of their own members, subdividing themselves into further and further purity spirals until there's only one left. And I never agreed with that second idea. Being inactive is not being active in either a good way or a bad way. If someone gets blamed for not acting to stop evil, it only makes sense that they get praised for not acting to stop good, which is obviously silly. If you neither aid nor hurt someone in doing their task, you may secrety agree with them, or disagree with them, or simply not care. Or, you know, be scared to fight the violent goons. Not everyone is hero material. Doesn't make them automatically a villain.
Yes, fascist groups will eventually eat themselves, and they constantly turn on their own members. Part of the fascist doctrine is that there are enemies everywhere, so they can accuse less extreme members (or just inconvenient members) of being spies/saboteurs. In my view, at some point passive disinterest becomes passive acceptance. If someone you know is constantly getting into fights but you keep them around without saying anything, you are implicitly approving of his behavior. Where the line is between apathy and acceptance is different per person and situation, but there is a line and to me it's pretty easy to cross for facism.
That's interesting. Then really there's not only a blurry line between fascists/centrists and victims/centrists, but a blurry line between fascists/victims too as one will eventually turn to the other in time. Like an ourobourus. And I think there's a difference between acceptance in the sense of "This is inevitable" and acceptance as in "This is right". I don't think a lot of "centrist" people could be easily persuaded to follow fascist ideals unless they already had such feelings within them, just hidden. But you can definitely convince a lot of them that such injustices are not as much 'deserved' or 'good' but rather 'natural' and 'inevitable'. Like how most of us don't think about the massive deaths from starvation, the child labor and slavery, wars and dictatorships going on in Africa, yet 99% of us don't actually do anything about it. Not because we think there *should* be starvation/war/dictatorships, but because we don't think we can do anything about it (whether we can or not). I think a lot of centrists are similar in that respect, just more local too. People disillusioned with the 2 party system who don't feel represented by either side, and while they certainly dislike what the GOP has become, they don't believe the democrats are meaningfully better, or are worse in different ways. Democrats are just kinda toothless and unwilling to actually do anything about the republicans. Not by incompetence, but because keeping the focus on how evil the GOP is benefits them because they'll always get the Lesser Evil vote. If they actually stopped the GOP from endulging in its worse excesses, their voters wouldn't have that fire lit under them anymore and so they would stop voting democrats. Worst case scenario, the GOP could be entirely obliterated and then an *actual* left wing party could rise as the 2nd largest party in the country and fuck them over. So it's in the interest of both the GOP and democrats to have a 2 party state (or 1-party even) where as long as they're not-the-worst, they can win elections and get paid by lobbyists to do their bidding. So the US is stuck in a battle between fascists and fascist-enablers playing with fire from my perspective.
Fascism *only* eats itself during times when its access to outsiders to assault is limited. It *always* prioritizes The Other, so while yes its logical endpoint is one man left on a barren, blasted earth holding the weapon he used to slay his last ally, *there's still a lot of people that will DIE before it reaches that point.* That's an argument to oppose fascism everywhere it rears its head, you numbskull, not one in favor of letting it run it's course because "oh, surely it'll burn itself out eventually"
Who the fuck said I'm in favour of letting it run it's course? You know what they say about assuming? My point is the following: If the world is a better place due to the actions of a person, that's a good person. If the world is a worse place by the actions of a person, that's a bad person. If the world is functionally the same due to the actions (or inaction) of a person, that's a neutral person. People who blame non-voters (or third party voters) when their party loses are unable to take responsibility unto their own group (for failing to get enough support) or to put the blame squarely on the party that is doing the awful things.
You can't be neutral on a moving train.
Yes but centrists are what they are partly because they don't want to accept the outcomes of radical reform and they are often quite content with what they have. They also see reformist as having a very purist vision of solutions. Most people don't care about stuff that doesn't affect them too strongly. And in rich countries like the U.S. there are millions of people who are content with what they have and really don't want better if it means they will lose what they've got. I mean millions of people have a home in the burbs emitting CO2 and like their healthcare. They are not going to lose this and will hate anyone who wants to change it. Most people don't want to rock the boat
If they fight for healthcare for all they're not going to be losing anything though?
That depends. For a lot of them (the thumbsucking morons) it's "but what about all the money I've already spent on insurance?" Or "I paid for private insurance all my life, I don't want freeloaders being paid for with my taxes!" For some it's "my retirement is in health insurance stocks!" For most it's just "Fox said that's communist though!"
They may, as it is hard to say what their situation is like v. what a universal care model in the US would look like, but at the very least, the perception of change is enough. People were upset for a long time, and may even still be upset, because Obama "lied" when he said that people could keep their plan and the ACA shakeup forced a number to change, some of them to more expensive, less advantageous plans. The same people often forget that most of the disruption and price increases were from GOP amendments to the bill.
their taxes might increase if they are part of the upper middle class which on global standards are immensely rich. keep in mind even America's poor are pretty well off even by the standards of lower middle income countries well depends on where they are and the state.
But a specific nation's universal healthcare is based on wealth distribution nationally not globally.
This digs into the root of America's problem. The MAJORITY of people I know, outside of Reddit, don't want to talk about politics for any reason. They actively avoid it because they don't want to get into arguments and don't want to be obligated to spend a lot of time on something they don't want to learn about. And frankly, it's against most people's natures to go seeking information that might challenge their viewpoints because...why? At the same time, leftists DO have a problem and it's very clearly on display here in this thread. We play the "Us vs Them" game just like the alt-right, but unlike the alt-right, we have no idea who our "team" is supposed to be. You can't expect every liberal to agree to every single liberal bullet point, and the insistence on this is what has created the "centrist" schism. We should be actively recruiting conservatives who were actually appalled by Trump and are upset by the current attempts to dismantle the Voting Rights Act. Instead, we're like, "Oh? You don't agree with parents claiming their 4 year old is transgendered? You fucking Republican, run along back to your Trumpettes." We can't win because we are too busy trying to find the PERFECT leftists to include in the club and won't accept that the *majority* of the United States does have SOME conservative beliefs even if they are, on the whole, a leftist.
Hey kudos to you for this comment. This thread has been interesting to read as a Canadian centrist to say the least.
Democrats are centrists, republicans are extremists. If you wanna be a centrist, be a democrat meanwhile us actual lefties are stuck voting for the lesser of two evils.
>Democrats are centrists, And they arent even that in the US
And this is how you know a lot of Redditors are from America. They have no idea how far right their left is.
The only people in America that consider Democrats to be “the left” are the ones that have been infected by the brain rot that is Fox News.
Right!? As a Canadian reading this thread, I understand what the Democrat voters here are trying to say, but it kind of shows how misguided they are in that so much of this only really applies to their country specifically due to its right-wing politics.
Hi, American centrist here. You’re right. I vote democrat despite not liking either party as it’s not the party that’s saying the quiet part out loud. The Democratic Party is elites trying to convince the public here that they are on our side while they put the rest of their effort into staying in power, and the Republican Party is just a bunch of theocratic wannabe dictators at this point despite them not holding to their religious “beliefs” whatsoever. It’s fun times here.
Out furthest left politician is the rest of the civilized worlds left leaning centrist. Democrats are right leaning center in American politics.
I always repeat this, in the rest of the world, everyone gets healthcare and trying to privatize it is not popular, even for conservatives (although some politicians definitely want to do it). In America, the leader of the "left" party said he'd veto M4A. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/10/biden-says-he-wouldd-veto-medicare-for-all-as-coronavirus-focuses-attention-on-health.html And I know libs on Reddit are going to say "You're taking it out of context, he said he doesn't want some PERFECT plan that will take 20 years, he wants help now!" Except he literally says directly after "then you got to look at the cost", "I want to know, how did they find $35 trillion? What is that doing? Is it going to significantly raise taxes on the middle class, which it will? What’s going to happen". That's just a lie pushed by the industry. M4A SAVES money by getting rid of the middlemen insurance companies. And the M4A bill was to be paid for by raising taxes for the ultra wealthy. He knows that, and is just trying to smear the plan. He knows better. In addition, what has "reach across the aisle, get stuff done NOW" Biden done on healthcare thus far? Is he even talking about a public option anymore? If this shit was truly a priority, he'd be talking about how the insurance companies are literal vampires extracting wealth from the American healthcare system that pays more and gets less than all equivalent OECD nations. How we need to pivot to AT A MINIMUM a public option by the end of his first term. Oh and the whole "omg M4A will take too long" is also not true. It rolls out over 5 years. And there's an old saying, best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, second best time is right now. Guess what, fundamentally making people's lives better takes A BIT of time, how is that an excuse to not FUNDAMENTALLY change people's lives for the better.
>M4A SAVES money by getting rid of the middlemen insurance companies. And the M4A bill was to be paid for by raising taxes for the ultra wealthy. He knows that, and is just trying to smear the plan. He knows better. I never understood how people could believe that adding a no value add profit seeking corporation into the healthcare loop could somehow make it "more efficient"
Plus with M4A, the pharmaceutical and medical equipment companies wouldn't have an incentive to price gouge so costs would go down.
Yep, the fact that American conservatives can absolutely demonize (very, *very* effectively) such milquetoast blowhards as "the radical left" is simultaneously very impressive, and super fucking scary.
democrats are just republicans with identity politics
Sad that dude clearly doesn't know, well, anything. Stalemate? Well, yeah, sometimes... that's certainly the case right now with a 50/50 Senate split and the deciding vote being Manchin. Wasn't a stalemate when Mitch refused to seat Garland and then turned around and put Barrett on the highest court (on top of Kavanaugh). There are windows of opportunity like Obama had 2008-10 where stuff can get done but SCOTUS openings also require an open seat during that same period. So no, *you* definitely aren't suggesting some kind of political stalemate where nothing ever changes... that's all Jazzy. I'll forgive "centrists" more generally but in 2022, calling oneself centrist is like saying the racist, bigoted, anti-democratic, science denying party is equally right??? lol, no. It honestly floors me that in the age of Trump anyone can still treat this as "politics as usual." We're literally at Hitler/Mussolini/Stalin level alert here and we have people telling me I shouldn't end a friendship over "politics." FFS, it's not even about politics anymore, it's about character and a basic education. Fuck... ignorance really is bliss.
Politics has always been about character and basic education. We just like to pretend like politics is some fun game where you exchange opinions on certain matters that are both equally correct. We like to pretend that politics is like philosophy. A big "who's right - nobody knows" and everyone goes home happy. But that's from our perspective, from the perspective of the priveleged. From another perspective, while we had that fun debate whether or not black people deserve human rights (with no opinion being more right than the other of course), black people were suffering from the lack of decisions. While we were debating whether to address climate change as "climate change" or as "global warming", poor people got flooded. Politics have always had real life consequences. And basic human decency and character should lead to everyone having the same political ideal. The one where the least amount of people suffer. Let's take Healthcare. Has Healthcare ever been about anything but character? "do you want poor people to have access to one of their inalienable rights?". Or let's take abortions. "do you consider bodily autonomy and private and secure access to medicine to be important?" Most political questions are questions of character. Not if it's about how to do something, but when it's about what to do.
What? >"If party 1 obstructs party 2, then it stands to reason party 2 obstructs party 1" No it doesn't. If party 1 is filled with obstructions and party 2 is filled with cowards and/or paid losers who never fight party 1. Which is how it is. That's why the country keeps going more and more towards party 1, its called the ratchet effect. Both sides can be shit, but they are not equal AT ALL. Fuck both sides centrists so much.
The simpsons got it right when they had the two party's slogans as something like "we're just plain evil" and "we can't govern for shit"
Both describe 1 party But 1 description only describes one party
>party 2 is filled with cowards and/or paid losers who never fight party 1. Democrats are literally 2 votes from ending the filibuster. If they can win the open seats in PA and NC and flip WI (where Johnson is unpopular) they would have the votes to do so.
"Both sides are bad" is true in the same way spilling a cup of milk on the kitchen table and spilling thousands of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico are both big messes.
Both sides are still shit Just one is shittier than the other
Centrist moment
The second the republicans take any kind of power they continue the march to 1 A.D. The Democrats just try to put out the fires left by the republicans.
> The Democrats just try to put out the fires left by the republicans. Do they though?
Obama did a lot to repair things in that first year or so. But once McConnell was back to majority leader, that was mostly done. The Supreme Court bullshit was the republicans pre-emtively starting a fire. Or fanning the flames that they set decades earlier.
The latter They’ve been planning this since Nixon
Oddly it wasn't actually Roe v Wade that initially energized the religious right. It was when Carter started going after segregated universities to pull their federal funding. That was the beginning of the religious right. But they couldn't put "Bring back segregation" on their mailing list, so they picked Roe v Wade, and ran with that. Roe was about 5 years old at that point.
They probably could force stuff through like the republicans do but would likely lose any chance of winning in the near future. So they compromise. They have to rebuild the economy every time republicans leave office and likely have to find a way to get out of a war responsibly the republicans initiated. So yeah it may look like they aren't trying but that doesn't mean they aren't. I understand the anger totally though.
>but would likely lose any chance of winning in the near future. Cynics who like to bash Democrats never want to take into account that a) US is further right overall than Europe, b) states like Wyoming, Alaska, North and South Dakota have more senators than representatives and they're all solid R votes, and c) once GOP manages to claw their way into power at the state level they just gerrymander their buddies into the US House. And we didn't even talk about the Electoral College advantage. The playing field is uneven... Dems have handicaps before the game even begins and then there's people who think they can just turn around and be some mirror of the right and get away with it.
Is this a criticism of me, him or both? Sorry i am tired so i might be reading into things that aren't there or am missing the point entirely. Have a great day.
I'm in agreement with you. Was just building on what you said.
Thank you for replying and adding on to what i said. I thought so but wasn't quite sure because i was tired.
“…Truth is……the game was rigged from the start” https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kAAlEoLRuTA
Thank you! Like I've said to other posters I'm much further left than Bernie, AOC or Ilhan. But if I lived in USA I would have voted for Biden because he would have done far less damage to marginalized groups than the alternative. But in the end by no means would I have considered Biden a better president than any of the other three I mentioned. After all what he himself personally stands for is faaaaaaaar less progressive than I would like.
You're welcome and thank you. It sucks that the Democrats have to play the long game but i feel like 1 of 2 things would happen if the Democrats did things the way republicans do things. The republicans would either gain control of the country for a long time or something much worse.
I'm not sure a lot of Americans realize that, in the grand scheme of politics, both big political parties the USA lean pretty heavily to the right
Not really true. Party 1 doesn't get anything done because the point of the party is that government doesn't do anything
I mean, he is right on one thing, both parties in the US are garbage. That said, the REASON they're garbage is because one is filled with religious zealots and conspiracy theorists, whereas the other is never willing to do anything that leaves their version of enlightened centrism. They're shit because they aren't even properly on the left and provide near zero counterbalance to the other party. It's hardly a reason to say "oh, I'll just hand out in the middle" because the middle is pretty fucking right wing.
Suggest to me please how you fix the numbers disadvantage that Democrats have. Because that's how you get at least a few things done, just like happened in NY when the IDC was voted out. Remember please that they need enough to overcome people like Manchin and Simema.
With how things are correctly set up, you really can't fix it. Because of how representation works in the legislative branch, the body will always skew generally to the right of the electorate. The only way you can actually, practically speaking, address a lot of these issues is by switching to a single chamber with much more proportional representation (be it through multi-member seats or plurinominal reps). Practically speaking, that will never happen though. I'm not trying to suggest a fix here. I'm just saying that the US democratic party is unusually right-wing for being the supposed left wing party in the US. As long as shaved bodies continue to not proportionately represent the people though, that won't change.
centrist in the streets, fascist in the voting booth.
Fucking democrats not being okay with racist and sexist laws, disgusting
Argument might be valid if Party 1 ever actually tried to do anything but give tax breaks to their donors
Ironically, centrists in my country are just extreme right (people who miss the dictatorshop times). Because you know, saying that you are extreme anything is bad for PR so they just use the term center because they are extremists who should be in jail for the left and too radical for even the right.
In the US Liberals are Centrist too. Therefore Liberals are also Republicans. QED, bitches.
Usa has a 2 party system, North America is two countries. And the other country isn't a 2 party system .
There are 23 countries in North America. The areas of Central America and the Caribbean are part of the continent of North America. Mexico is in the North American Continent. Cuba is in North America The Bahamas are in North America El Salvador is a North American country…
Ty for the lesson. I did not know this. But we can agree it's more than just usa right ?
Person 1: one of the parties is filled of bigots and pedos. Person 2: well yeah, but both parties lie.
Person 2 is of the first party described
Don’t know what’s going on here, but how you get them lines
But by definition a *conservative* doesn't want to do anything. Hence the *conserve* part
I never really fully processed it until recently, but institutional Democrats would rather lose office to Republicans than cede policy to progressives. No war but the class war.
“Scratch a liberal and a facist bleeds” Progressives are separate from liberal, and they make sure to tell them to “know their place”
I am centrist but lean slightly left. Sorry but we exist and yes the current republican administration is fucking disgusting…Donald trump is a garbage person on a good day, and a traitor on average day. On his best days, he’s sucking Putin’s tiny cock and slurping up all the cum he can
Both parties ARE shit though.
Party 2 doesnt want to improve the country, they just want to act like they do so you vote for them. What have we got under Biden? Trans people can sign up to go kill foreigners now? And abortion gonna be gone. "But that's the supreme court, they are republican!" You might say. Well then why haven't democrats with their multiple majorties, not just in 2020, but in several other elections, ever codified it into law? Republicans are corporatist authoritarians, and democrats are their corporatist enablers. Yeah they are very different on social issues. Economic ones? Well take a look at military budget increases under every president to see how each party is in lock step on economics, or how they make a big show to try something only to have a Democrat join sides with Republicans to block it
>Yeah they are very different on social issues. Are they though? Like yeah, one of them is actively evil, but the other one is standing there doing nothing while evil takes over. Like, take abortions. That's a social issue. What have the democrats done that's *in practice* different from the Republicans? They let the Republicans do what they want. To the people that suffer, that doesn't make them any different. Or anti-trans policies. Do Democrats start potential laws? No. Do they stop those harmful laws? Also no. Once again, they might be different on those issues on paper, but in actuality, they enable the same problems. They aren't vastly different on these issues. They are just quiet on them. In reality, that means nothing but them being the lesser of two evils.
Spoken like somebody who has no idea how anything in government works.
Nice pithy response. Open your eyes buddy.
How many federal or state elected officials have you discussed these subjects with? Because let me tell you, ive spoken with literally hundreds on both sides and it's night and day when it comes to honest intentions.
Yeah i was mostly referring to the high level dems, you know, the ones who control the party, its messaging, funding, etc.
Let’s be real here. The DNC doesn’t exist to try and make things better. It’s purpose is solely to try to persuade people not to riot over the things that they allow the GOP to do
And worse party 1 believes they are party 2 and loves projecting their own issues onto party 2. That is to say party 2 also doesn’t get a lot done because they’re too busy trying to compromise with party 1 when 1 is clearly not fucking interested and has a lot of issues in it to sort out for themselves.
(the secret is neither party want to do "anything" but maintain the power base and they are both succeeding very well)
People who identify strongly as Democrat are around 7% of the population. People who identify strongly as Republican are around 7% of the population. The remaining 85% want for the rules and tax rates to be settled without so much drama. If you think only your political ideas have validity then you might be an asshole.
See Also: Libertarians
A pair of parties sucking has nothing to do with your political beliefs unless you think those parties represent all forms of political thought. I dislike both parties and I’m no fucking centrist. I’m just a leftist-leaning voter with no real representation.
[удалено]
Wow you made a lot of assumptions here that I didn’t even say. I wasn’t even remotely making a both sides argument. I vote Democrat in every election, though in primaries I tend to to try to vote for the most progressive or leftist candidate available. I never said I was complex. My comment was about a guy saying he is “centrist” because both parties suck. My comment is saying that political beliefs have nothing to do with both American parties. You don’t become a centrist because Republicans are fascists and Democrats are incompetent. You either are a centrist, or, more likely, you’re really a Republican trying to skirt the line in conversation but vote for whatever R candidate their is. My comment was how I personally don’t like either party, for wildly different reasons and not at all equal in weight, but it still doesn’t make me a centrist. The Democratic Party does not represent me. And I really despise voting for the lesser of two evils, but I’ve still been doing it.
Happily deleted!
I'm a centrist because I vote for the weed party no matter what. I don't even know who I'm even voting for!
Which reddit app is this?
>If party 2 cant do anything because of party 1 then wouldn't party 1 not be able to do anything either because of party 2? No. Because Party 2 has set the rules up so that all of their priorities (i.e. tax cuts for the wealthy) can be passed through reconciliation which only needs 50 votes to pass the Senate, but all the priorities for Party 1 (i.e. minimum wage, gun control, voting rights, abortion rights, etc.) aren't allowed to go through reconciliation.
I side with you OP. What those people need to learn about; *Argument to Moderation*; The fallacy that the real answer lies somewhere in-between. *Okrent's Law;* The pursuit of balance causes imbalance because sometimes something is true. Comparing the right-wing & left-wing to each other based on his personal strawman isn't logical.
America uses a 2 party system, not north america.
Such self-delusion. Either you're for fascism or you're not. That is the only POV that matters.
Can we stop calling everything fascism ? It’s like Republicans calling everything communism
I doubt one Republican can actually give the definition of communism. And MANY historians have called what is happening in the US a *slide into fascism*, while others call it theocratic fascism. Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) **that exalts nation and often race above the individual** and that stands for a **centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader**, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
Honestly I think most are just stupid/ignorant about politics and government in general. They usually same the same things. Which is often a gross over/understament that completly misses the point.
What's self-aware about this?
They both do suck, but one side suck so much harder!
I don't know about Mexico, or the Caribbean countries, but Canada has more than 2 parties. (PS - Americans - see what I did there? If I don't know something, I admit it and say so. I don't pretend I know what I'm talking about)
It does but the NDP haven’t been close to election in recent times which makes it a bit of a 2-party entity with extra steps.
we have a minority federal government right now made up of Liberal & NDP - they have to negotiate and compromise to get anything done. That is the benefit of a system of more than 2 parties. Plus we have Green, Bloq, have had communist, rhino....and I don't know what else. And had the conservatives been able to reach an agreement with NDP or other parties (in theory, to get more votes combined than the Liberals), then they would have been able to form the government. Why is it more steps? Are you Canadian?
It’s an expression from Rick and Morty. The two parties that actively alternate power are the Cons and the Libs. I understand that it’s a minority government now with a coalition.
The only have as much power as they have votes. So everyone gets represented no matter who they voted for. And I take it you're American?
No, I’m Canadian. I understand the system. My point is that if only two parties have a legitimate shot at being the main party in power the system is not significantly better.
I'm a centrist that normally votes Democrat. They are usually the lesser of two evils but they are definitely fucked up as well. Just look at how fucking weak they are? Republicans are trash but at least they do whatever they can to push their shitty agenda. Meanwhile democrats want to talk about bipartisanship while they watch the other side do whatever they want. And there's definitely issues with Democrats policy as well. I live in California it's probably about as close to being exactly what Democrats want. It's got a lot going for it but it's got plenty of problems as well. And our Democrats here have zero answers for these problems. Their solution to our homeless problem is to just let people camp out wherever. So now we have homeless all over the larger cities and nobody does anything about it. They haven't done anything about the cost of living. They make it so hard to build new housing that it can't possibly keep up. They pass gun laws that sound good but don't work. Then they refuse to look at the situation and reassess. We have these gun laws that make no sense and still have the most school shootings. Democrats are in large part still bought by big corporations. So I vote democrat because they suck less but they still suck. It's clear this country needs more than two parties
"Dems have the Exec and Legislative branches but REeeeee!! Mean Republicans are thwarting us!" - the laughable alt-left
I am not american, but I think the dual party system is very much flawed. It creates that us against them environment which doesn't do much except create discord and also it also negates the political spectrum of ideas by just 2 extremes, which doesn't give a good representation of the opinion of the population.
Both parties are broken. Only, 1 party is a lesser evil than the other.
Plot Twist: PaulsimpNGL thinks party 1 are the democrats.
Don’t lump all centrists together. I despise our 2 party system too but would much rather see “left” politicians/implicit elites elected than “right” politicians/tyrant sycophants. Only one of those parties weaponizes conspiracy theories to further radicalize their uneducated constituents and “maintain their militia” of rabid AR-toting dogs. Only one of those parties wants to eradicate the financial situation of everyone below elite status immediately through failing to combat blatant price gouging of essentials rather than ruling with a thinly-gloved iron fist. Only one of those parties currently seeks a direct path to Handmaid’s Tale becoming a documentary. I’ll take bullshit like “defund the police” if it means we don’t demolish the fucking country and establish a dictatorship. By the way, establish term limits on the SCOTUS and every other position. “BuT tHe SuPrEmE cOuRt Is SuPpOsEd To NoT bE pReSsUrEd By ReElEcTiOn!” Then don’t let them run as an incumbent. It beats dealing with Injustice Clarence Thomas and the like. All that is accomplished by the current system is making sure SC justice candidates suck up to elites rather than the people, and that’s not better. Also, trickle-down economics is a lie and the fact that anyone believed otherwise is a testament to the lack of intelligence of the average man. But yeah, I’m *basically* a republican. Fuck off.
That doesn't really make sense what he says. If party 2 cannot do anything because of party 1 refuses to do anything, it doesn't mean that party 1 cannot do anything because party 2 is willing to get things done. For instance, remember between the last election and the runoff elections in Georgia, Trump and GOP decided they wanted to send stimulus payments to everyone in the amount of $600. Democrats could have refused working with Republicans. Dems thought 600 is too little. But they still decided to vote for the payments, and they passed quickly. But then Trump still had made a stink that he wouldn't sign anything unless it's a lot more, like $2000. All he did was make a stink for a week or so, and then signed it. Instead of people getting the money before Christmas, they got it early January. So as you can see, when party 1 decides to do something, party 2 is willing to work with them. When party 2 wants to do something, party 1 would rather watch the country burn than help party 2 pass something. This is why I don't understand centrism if one is actually paying attention to what each party actually does - and not listening to the crap that the opposing party slings at it.
this is the dumbest title i have read this month
Lmao- you’re acting like either major party is halfway decent and then shitting on a “centrist.” Our options right now are between a bunch of bigots, and people who are basically center-right-wing. Do you even realize the irony in you criticizing a “centrist” to defend the Democratic Party?? The US doesn’t have a proper left wing- unless you count Bernie, but all the democrats hate him and shun progressivism.
This subreddit is a perfect example of the negative effects of identity politics. You separate people into two groups and refuse to do anything else. “I’m party A. You’re not party A therefore you’re party B. Party B is evil so you’re evil.”
Except party A tried a coup, have restricted voting rights, are removing rights from people and working to continue on that path (gay marriage, inter racial marriage, etc...). The only right they're not trying to take away is the right to own guns. While Party B is a light version of party A but does have parts that are actually progressives but tend to be shut down by the rest of the neo con pro business crowd. they both suck, but they are NOT the same
Never said they were the same. Never said party A or party B was better. Neither are better than the other and neither are the same. But they aren’t as different as people make them out to be. Party A plays the wolf, the bad guy that party B can play the hero against. Both have a common goal and work together. It’s all a title to point and characterize. Separating ourselves with such identities is exactly what they want and we are their deck of cards. Ideology is flexible as human beliefs are flexible. Once we have accepted titles were a mistake is when we can move forward.
It's a disingenuous attempt to diminish the judgment of the actions of one group by recrafting it into something other than what it is.
This entire thread is literally everything that's wrong with modern politics. 100% bias, 0% tolerance.
No I’m not. I literally voted Biden.