HIT ME! IM A DIRTY CENTRIST! not literally please, just with questions :) actually idk;)

[Perotista]

The "middle" is a moving target that can never be hit.

You know, several years ago I started noticing that both parties, when staking out their positions on important matters, would stake out an extreme position so that when they "compromised" they would wind up getting what they really wanted in the first place. Somewhere along the line that devolved into just staking out extreme positions and sticking with them and compromise only meant the other side agreeing to your demands.

Yeah, that the way it used to be. It is what it is, I doubt it will change any time soon. It’s all part of today’s modern political era of polarization, the great divide, the super, mega, ultra-high partisanship. The sad part is both major parties still think they’re mainstream with their political views, philosophy, ideology if you will that of a majority of Americans. It isn’t.

 

[reinaert]

The op's insistence upon a binary between culture wars or shared culture assumes that at some point in the recent and memorable past, people within countries and borders possessed and were possessed by a unifying culture.

There is no evidence for this assumption.

At best, there is evidence that the assumption itself has attained the status of myth.

 

[j brown's body]

I'm referring to the teaching of history through identity groups and not civilizations.
which again is completely fair to add but not to replace.

US History is practically based on identity groups, but what does that have to do with being a centrist?

 

[j brown's body]

The op's insistence upon a binary between culture wars or shared culture assumes that at some point in the recent and memorable past, people within countries and borders possessed and were possessed by a unifying culture.

There is no evidence for this assumption.

At best, there is evidence that the assumption itself has attained the status of myth.

My old friend, who is a centrist, seems fine with a white, paternalistic society.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Its being cheeky and self aware of what the parties think of us.

It's hilarious.

The center is in between the left and right on a political SPECTRUM

Meaning what?

Its between two major political halves.

So between Obama and Trump? Does that make you Joe Manchin?

Its a relative term, there isn't a pinpoint with a numerical value. Just as when we say the left, its an encompassing half that is relative to the right. You cant pinpoint was the left is or right is exactly without generalizing and being relative. Its not between two arbitrary politicians. You should understand this.

Um, I don't. Explain it to me. Is it between Progressive Socialism and Fascism? What does that look like in practical terms?

Saying centrism lacks ideology is weak. By your logic leftist and right wingers don't either. Is the left AOC or Biden?

Left-leaning means having a theory of power that is not consolidated in the hands of the few.

Is it right Trump or Romney?

They are on the same ideological curve. Romney pretends to be respectable, but has a theory of power and hierarchy that rivals Trump. Romney works within a system that favors him, whereas Trump seeks to build a system that favors him even more than it already does.

Sounds like everyone doesn't have views!!!!

No, I just think your understanding of Left and Right politics is limited.

What is the Left? What is the Right? Democrats and Republicans change their ideologies every generation, so by that logic no one has a clear ideology.

You're confusing politics with ideology. They are related, but not synonymous. Politics is centered around policy, whereas ideology is broader and deeper. For decades the Democrats have been keen on sustaining a right-leaning system that empowers elites and special interests. This is seen as being centrist and moderate. However, it does not serve the people, but rather the parties I mentioned. Power has been shifted to the elites, undemocratically. The real center would shift power back to the people, away from special interests and monied politics. Instead we have DEMOCRATIC politicians taking right-wing money to prop up right-wing causes. That has nothing to Leftist politics.

Saying someone doesn't have "ReAl ViEwS" just because they don't feel that a political party encompasses all their believes is a wild take. I guess we should all just be fascist and communist to be safe that we have "ReAl ViEwS" !!!!!

Name a politician you identify with. That's a good start in determining where you sit, ideologically.

Also what pretense that we are better? Do you mean having a political opinion? Do you not think your views are better than that ones who decided to not believe in?

That sentence sucks.

 

[MikePrime]

Well, you start off wrong,

Do you or do you not think that group identity is a tenet of Marxism. Yes or no.

And it overarchingly, both in its pursuit, and what its theorists were trying to articulate, a means to liberation.

Onviously, this is a gloss, and hardly comprehensive, but I wager little more than this, and we will become lost, as you bring (at this juncture) received notions, but less evidence of study.

I understand this. everything is system in critical theory. Everything has an oppressor class and a oppressed class. And this study of class systems is based on identity groups.

 

[reinaert]

Do you or do you not think that group identity is a tenet of Marxism. Yes or no.

Let's address your first contention first.

I'm not at all interested in playing this game where a respondent ricochets from claim to claim, hoping to stay ahead of pesky little bits like definitions, meanings, and things previously cksimed.

I understand this. everything is system in critical theory. Everything has an oppressor class and a oppressed class. And this study of class systems is based on identity groups.

Nope. Let's first tackle whether the Frankfurt School dealt in identity.

 

[MikePrime]

It's hilarious.



Meaning what?

Left, Center, Right.

Im not going to go into some spiraling deconstruction of simple vocabulary words. And when you do so, all you logic also applies to the left and the right not just centrism.

Its not between two specific ideologies, its between the groupings of left and right.

For instance I believe protecting the 2nd amendment (right wing). I also believe in universal health care (left wing).
There is nothing contradictory about upholding these two believes. I disagree too much with the left to be leftist and the same goes for the right. I am fairly, as many are, in the middle.

so your attempt to make Centrism seem like it doesn't exist is beyond silly. You do understand that on the political spectrum, the left and the right have to meet at some point in which they become one or the other.

Very simple system.

 

[MikePrime]

Let's address your first contention first.

My first contention? Which is? Did you not just respond to my claims about identity groups?

I'm not at all interested in playing this game where a respondent ricochets from claim to claim, hoping to stay ahead of pesky little bits like definitions, meanings, and things previously cksimed.

Well actually, I have answered your questions but you aren't right now ..
and I haven't changed claims, you're the one talking about several things at once. Identity groups and neo Marxism. very simple

 

[Real blank]

Imagine 1990 crime levels with smart phones and social media.

 

[MikePrime]

US History is practically based on identity groups

Oh so there's no different between the traditional way in which its taught and the way I described it in my example? #168

 

[noonereal]

This didn't begin with Trump.

Yep, began with fat Rush and lying instead of reporting Fox

 

[j brown's body]

Left, Center, Right.

Im not going to go into some spiraling deconstruction of simple vocabulary words. And when you do so, all you logic also applies to the left and the right not just centrism.

Its not between two specific ideologies, its between the groupings of left and right.

For instance I believe protecting the 2nd amendment (right wing). I also believe in universal health care (left wing).
There is nothing contradictory about upholding these two believes. I disagree too much with the left to be leftist and the same goes for the right. I am fairly, as many are, in the middle.

so your attempt to make Centrism seem like it doesn't exist is beyond silly. You do understand that on the political spectrum, the left and the right have to meet at some point in which they become one or the other.

Very simple system.

Do you support the finer conservative view that the 2nd amendment doesn't give one an i divisusl right to own a gun, or the more conservative, shall we say reinterpretation, that it does?

And if one believes in the old conservative interpretation, are they no longer on the right? Has the center moved right?

 

[MikePrime]

Do you support the finer conservative view that the 2nd amendment doesn't give one an i divisusl right to own a gun, or the more conservative, shall we say reinterpretation, that it does?

Are you speaking of the conservative democrats and the views of individual/ militia.
No I don't support policies that were used to strip protection from minority groups and strengthen terrorist groups like the klan.

And if one believes in the old conservative interpretation, are they no longer on the right? Has the center moved right?

One single issue doesn't make you left or right.

 

[donhughesmusic]

I don’t know what exactly the middle is. I do know independents, the non-affiliated, the less to non-partisan group has grown from 30% in 2006 up to 43% today. But they’re a mixed bag. Most independents support the republicans on some things, issues and the democrats on other things, issues. Very few are smack dab in the middle ideological wise. I like to use the example of someone being pro-life and pro-2nd amendment at the same time. But with both major parties looking for ideological purity, that person doesn’t pass either major party’s litmus tests.

Even with both major parties shrinking, there will be no viable third party to challenge them. Republicans and democrats write our election laws and they do so as a mutual protection act. Then there’s the financial aspect with all these billionaires, lobbyist, corporations, etc. giving their money to both major parties in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars with nothing to any of the third-party kind. You can’t blame them, they want a good return on their investment, er, donations which no third party or independent can provide.

On the presidential level alone, Harris raised and spent almost 2 billion dollars to Trump’s 1.45 billion with little poor Jill Stein in third place at 2.7 million.

https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presidential-race

Almost 16 billion dollars were raised and spent by the two major parties in all the 2024 election races.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/20...spending-projected-to-exceed-previous-record/

There’s no competing against both the elections laws which discourage all independents and third party candidate along with all the money.

Yes there is. Not voting is a valid option. Votes should be earned, and voting for someone who is the lesser of two evils is irresponsible. If a candidate doesn't earn your vote, why should you be forced to vote for that person just because you don't like the other guy more?

...and don't give me that "you don't have a right to complain if you didn't vote" line. Of course I do. 1. First Amendment. 2. Neither candidate EARNED my vote. I didn't go around marrying every girl I see just because that was who was available, and I'm not going to vote for someone just because they were available.

 

[tshade]

It's not working. The two parties are a duopoly that divides the true majority in the middle and are anti-democratic.

speak for yourself----------------voters made their choice in the GOP, and for the Democrats.............seems fine to me. Now, don't get me wrong, I think the choice the GOPers made was irresponsible, but hey, the voters chose....

 

[tshade]

I would argue that the better candidate is the one who won.

I don't see how you could do that in this case............sometimes it is true, yes, but I've seen bonehead choices made by the system through history......

 

[tshade]

I wouldn't be against eliminating political parties. You are who you are, not beholden to a party.

??? well, that is the case now, if you choose that.....

 

[Perotista]

Yes there is. Not voting is a valid option. Votes should be earned, and voting for someone who is the lesser of two evils is irresponsible. If a candidate doesn't earn your vote, why should you be forced to vote for that person just because you don't like the other guy more?

...and don't give me that "you don't have a right to complain if you didn't vote" line. Of course I do. 1. First Amendment. 2. Neither candidate EARNED my vote. I didn't go around marrying every girl I see just because that was who was available, and I'm not going to vote for someone just because they were available.

My option instead of not voting or voting for the lesser of two evils, the least worse candidate or the major party candidate I wanted to lose the lease when I wanted both to lose is to vote third party. Which I have done in 5 of the last 9 elections beginning in 1992. Of course, the two major parties harp on voting third party as a wasted vote as that third-party candidate can’t win. I don’t look at it that way, voting third party was a way for me to officially register my vote as being against both major party candidates.

The thing is that even if one votes for a major party candidate, many of their votes are against the other candidate, not for the candidate they voted for. What’s interesting about this is those who voted for Trump, 55% were for him, wanted him to win with 36% against Harris, just wanting her to lose, who won wasn’t really important as long a Harris lost. In Harris’s case 44% were for her, wanted her to win with 50% against Trump, just wanting him to lose, who won again wasn’t really important as long as Trump lost.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/exit-polls/national-results/general/president/0

 

[Moderate Right]

I don't see how you could do that in this case............sometimes it is true, yes, but I've seen bonehead choices made by the system through history......

Everyone thinks that when their candidate loses. The other one won because they were the better candidate, whether you like them or not.

 

[Moderate Right]

??? well, that is the case now, if you choose that.....

If we got rid of parties then everyone would have to choose the best person, not the best party. Every candidate would have their own values, not the party values.

 

[craig]

If we got rid of parties then everyone would have to choose the best person, not the best party. Every candidate would have their own values, not the party values.

Don't have to get rid of parties just take their unconstitutional powers away. No party on the ballot. Only a single run-off primary for all candidates. No majority minority in Congress. All donations must be given by single individuals directly to the candidate.

 

[tshade]

Everyone thinks that when their candidate loses. The other one won because they were the better candidate, whether you like them or not.

no-------there is criteria. I, like most rational voters, have no ego involved..................Trump voters cannot say that

 

[donhughesmusic]

Don't have to get rid of parties just take their unconstitutional powers away. No party on the ballot. Only a single run-off primary for all candidates. No majority minority in Congress. All donations must be given by single individuals directly to the candidate.

How about this: no donations at all. Each candidate gets a set amount of money to spend from the government. That's it. If they want to spend more it has to be their own money. No donations allowed.

 

[craig]

How about this: no donations at all. Each candidate gets a set amount of money to spend from the government. That's it. If they want to spend more it has to be their own money. No donations allowed.

That wouldn't be constitutional. I think the requirement that donations can only be made transparently from a named individual directly to a candidate would work.