And neither are they, so what’s your point? They’re just saying that both sides have good points, and they’re the “party” that will get what the nation wants done. Is trying to do what the nation wants as whole centrist to you? Or are trying to smear someone who doesn’t align fully with you? That’s the issue that they are also trying to bring to light, you are saying there is sides, there shouldn’t be… since to be centrist requires sides… or parties… you’ve no contradicted yourself in your explanation.
What’s centrist about that? I think you’re just reading way too far into this or trying to make it into something it’s not. Both sides have points, both are wrong, and you’re trying to decry someone saying this. That’s frankly wrong dude.
There shouldn’t be sides, and that makes centralism impossible, it’s only possible with the two party system.
They’re just saying that both sides have good points
Which is wrong. What “good points” do right-wingers legitimately have?
Is trying to do what the nation wants as whole centrist to you?
Saying “both sides have good points” places a mystical property on whatever is in the middle, as though the middle is inherently correct.
You’re batting a bit too hard for someone that thinks correct answers come from finding the midpoint. If someone says 2+2=4, and someone else says 2+2=6, the answer is still 4, not 5.
Which is wrong. What “good points” do right-wingers legitimately have?
This is why US politics are wild….
Saying “both sides have good points” places a mystical property on whatever is in the middle, as though the middle is inherently correct.
And you’re saying only the left is right in both of your statements, obviously you aren’t impartial and have a bias, as pointed out in my previous comment
You’re batting a bit too hard for someone that thinks correct answers come from finding the midpoint. If someone says 2+2=4, and someone else says 2+2=6, the answer is still 4, not 5.
That is some fallacious strawmanning right there, you’re saying only one side can be right, that’s not someone who is willing to have a discussion, you’re obviously just throwing shit at anything you don’t agree with.
Which is the entire point of his joke running, it’s hilarious that you can’t see this, but not surprising since you think there’s only one party. This is American politics people.
This isn’t unique to the US. The US did not invent the concept of a midpoint.
And you’re saying only the left is right in both of your statements, obviously you aren’t impartial and have a bias, as pointed out in my previous comment
I never said I wasn’t biased. Of course I am biased, I am biased because I have a coherent worldview and set of values that aligns to the left.
That is some fallacious strawmanning right there, you’re saying only one side can be right, that’s not someone who is willing to have a discussion, you’re obviously just throwing shit at anything you don’t agree with.
Generally, yes, there is a correct side.
Which is the entire point of his joke running, it’s hilarious that you can’t see this, but not surprising since you think there’s only one party. This is American politics people.
Not sure where you got the idea that I think there’s only one party, but keep cooking, it’s funny lol
This isn’t unique to the US. The US did not invent the concept of a midpoint.
What other countries have a two party democracy? And what other countries smear the other parties to the degree of US politics?
I get you have an axe to grind, but I said I was an outsider, how am I supposed to know one side is right and one side is wrong? If one is right and one is wrong, that really only makes one party now doesn’t it? You seem to want to point out math to others, but have an issue understanding it yourself.
I get the sense that you don’t follow politics super often… if you’re an outsider, I understand that “you must be biased to say that only one side has any good points” seems like the obviously correct position, but trust me, it’s not. Don’t attack people who have spent time in politics and developed a more accurate viewpoint just because it’s counterintuitive.
Hence maybe why I’m pointing out that there shouldn’t be any sort of party or candidate that should be referred to as “centrist”…?
In other countries and political systems, that would be someone who would stand in the middle and actually have both good points as their platform.
In the US it’s used as smear to refer to people who don’t align politically with you. Same with the terms “left” and “right”. Other democracies have parties in these sides, but A there’s more than one, and B, the term isn’t used to smear and slander people or parties.
Hence this being a uniquely American thing…. Other countries use terms like progressive and conservatives instead, much more friendly and correct terms.
Again, when did I mention parties? You keep bringing them up when nobody else did.
If one is right and one is wrong, that really only makes one party now doesn’t it?
You’re confusing concepts like leftism and rightism with parties. Parties can have incoherent collections of ideas, they usually serve their donors alone.
You seem to want to point out math to others, but have an issue understanding it yourself.
You’ve mentioned left and right, are those not the party lines? You can’t claim you’re not mentioning parties when you’ve only done it using different terms in every comment. You can’t have someone who is “centrist” in democracies with more than 2 candidates, it’s a uniquely US issue, especially with the smear campaigns instead of actual politics.
I mean you described them that way, and you’re using them to describe the two different parties. Claiming otherwise is asinine. If they aren’t parties, and they aren’t sides, then what are they?
Without parties or sides, you can have left, right, or center. I’m sorry you got called out on this and are now flinging shit and making yourself look like biased bigot.
Now can you answer my questions or are you just going to deflect because you can’t answer simple questions without decrying people who don’t align politically with you…?
You’ve mentioned left and right, are those not the party lines?
Nope, I am referring to positions, not parties, ie Socialism vs Capitalism, as an example.
You can’t claim you’re not mentioning parties when you’ve only done it using different terms in every comment.
I haven’t brought up parties a single time.
You can’t have someone who is “centrist” in democracies with more than 2 candidates, it’s a uniquely US issue, especially with the smear campaigns instead of actual politics.
You absolutely can. Centrist does not mean someone purely in between 2 and only 2 concepts.
Without parties or sides, you can have left, right, or center. I’m sorry you got called out on this and are now flinging shit and making yourself look like biased bigot.
What are you cooking here? Parties are not sides, parties are groups of people with a shared position. People don’t get their values and views from party lines.
Now can you answer my questions or are you just going to deflect because you can’t answer simple questions without decrying people who don’t align politically with you…?
Not a single one of your questions has made sense, like when you keep referring to parties.
You are comparing basic addition with extremely complex social economics. You can’t just do A and guarantee B will happen. But if B actually happens it can be good for one group of people and bad for another one. Often the best solution is some kind of compromise. That said there surely can be some obviously bad ideas.
The Right are denying scientific consensus on anything that doesn’t make them money or own the libs.
Forget the “social economics” which is also bunk, because the majority of Americans want lower healthcare costs, gun control, freedom of choice, better economic equality, and better education.
These are all things the right (and written down in Project 2025 btw).
If Mr. Beast knew anything, he’d claim to work with the popular majority, but he’s been trained by social media that controversy equals popularity. Basically it’s an algorithmic version of “no such thing as bad press”. So he won’t do the best thing for the world, he’ll do whatever he thinks will be a net gain in popularity. Which is why he said what he said, so he doesn’t lose and right wing viewers of his clickbate.
I seriously wish this were the case. As someone who genuinely finds policy and political theory fascinating I wish I could have actual good faith policy discussions with people who don’t mostly agree with me, but the unfortunate fact is the Republican party doesn’t have any clear policy other than “whatever is good for the party members individually” or more currently “whatever Trump wants this week” (seriously, what isn’t listed at all on the shiny new Republican Party Platform speaks volumes to how the party doesn’t have any coherent political ideology to even pay lip service to)
And neither are they, so what’s your point? They’re just saying that both sides have good points, and they’re the “party” that will get what the nation wants done. Is trying to do what the nation wants as whole centrist to you? Or are trying to smear someone who doesn’t align fully with you? That’s the issue that they are also trying to bring to light, you are saying there is sides, there shouldn’t be… since to be centrist requires sides… or parties… you’ve no contradicted yourself in your explanation.
What’s centrist about that? I think you’re just reading way too far into this or trying to make it into something it’s not. Both sides have points, both are wrong, and you’re trying to decry someone saying this. That’s frankly wrong dude.
There shouldn’t be sides, and that makes centralism impossible, it’s only possible with the two party system.
Which is wrong. What “good points” do right-wingers legitimately have?
Saying “both sides have good points” places a mystical property on whatever is in the middle, as though the middle is inherently correct.
You’re batting a bit too hard for someone that thinks correct answers come from finding the midpoint. If someone says 2+2=4, and someone else says 2+2=6, the answer is still 4, not 5.
This is why US politics are wild….
And you’re saying only the left is right in both of your statements, obviously you aren’t impartial and have a bias, as pointed out in my previous comment
That is some fallacious strawmanning right there, you’re saying only one side can be right, that’s not someone who is willing to have a discussion, you’re obviously just throwing shit at anything you don’t agree with.
Which is the entire point of his joke running, it’s hilarious that you can’t see this, but not surprising since you think there’s only one party. This is American politics people.
This isn’t unique to the US. The US did not invent the concept of a midpoint.
I never said I wasn’t biased. Of course I am biased, I am biased because I have a coherent worldview and set of values that aligns to the left.
Generally, yes, there is a correct side.
Not sure where you got the idea that I think there’s only one party, but keep cooking, it’s funny lol
What other countries have a two party democracy? And what other countries smear the other parties to the degree of US politics?
I get you have an axe to grind, but I said I was an outsider, how am I supposed to know one side is right and one side is wrong? If one is right and one is wrong, that really only makes one party now doesn’t it? You seem to want to point out math to others, but have an issue understanding it yourself.
I get the sense that you don’t follow politics super often… if you’re an outsider, I understand that “you must be biased to say that only one side has any good points” seems like the obviously correct position, but trust me, it’s not. Don’t attack people who have spent time in politics and developed a more accurate viewpoint just because it’s counterintuitive.
I don’t follow US politics* since I don’t live there……
But the issue is uniquely American, maybe you need to follow other countries politics more to see how flawed yours is?
I KNOW how flawed ours is. You do not seem to.
Hence maybe why I’m pointing out that there shouldn’t be any sort of party or candidate that should be referred to as “centrist”…?
In other countries and political systems, that would be someone who would stand in the middle and actually have both good points as their platform.
In the US it’s used as smear to refer to people who don’t align politically with you. Same with the terms “left” and “right”. Other democracies have parties in these sides, but A there’s more than one, and B, the term isn’t used to smear and slander people or parties.
Hence this being a uniquely American thing…. Other countries use terms like progressive and conservatives instead, much more friendly and correct terms.
Again, when did I mention parties? You keep bringing them up when nobody else did.
You’re confusing concepts like leftism and rightism with parties. Parties can have incoherent collections of ideas, they usually serve their donors alone.
I’m just fine, thank you.
You’ve mentioned left and right, are those not the party lines? You can’t claim you’re not mentioning parties when you’ve only done it using different terms in every comment. You can’t have someone who is “centrist” in democracies with more than 2 candidates, it’s a uniquely US issue, especially with the smear campaigns instead of actual politics.
I mean you described them that way, and you’re using them to describe the two different parties. Claiming otherwise is asinine. If they aren’t parties, and they aren’t sides, then what are they?
Without parties or sides, you can have left, right, or center. I’m sorry you got called out on this and are now flinging shit and making yourself look like biased bigot.
Now can you answer my questions or are you just going to deflect because you can’t answer simple questions without decrying people who don’t align politically with you…?
Nope, I am referring to positions, not parties, ie Socialism vs Capitalism, as an example.
I haven’t brought up parties a single time.
You absolutely can. Centrist does not mean someone purely in between 2 and only 2 concepts.
What are you cooking here? Parties are not sides, parties are groups of people with a shared position. People don’t get their values and views from party lines.
Not a single one of your questions has made sense, like when you keep referring to parties.
deleted by creator
You are comparing basic addition with extremely complex social economics. You can’t just do A and guarantee B will happen. But if B actually happens it can be good for one group of people and bad for another one. Often the best solution is some kind of compromise. That said there surely can be some obviously bad ideas.
Which is why you can be correct. “Trickle Down Economics” was never even sound in theory, and proved itself wrong in practice even more, for example.
The Right are denying scientific consensus on anything that doesn’t make them money or own the libs.
Forget the “social economics” which is also bunk, because the majority of Americans want lower healthcare costs, gun control, freedom of choice, better economic equality, and better education.
These are all things the right (and written down in Project 2025 btw).
If Mr. Beast knew anything, he’d claim to work with the popular majority, but he’s been trained by social media that controversy equals popularity. Basically it’s an algorithmic version of “no such thing as bad press”. So he won’t do the best thing for the world, he’ll do whatever he thinks will be a net gain in popularity. Which is why he said what he said, so he doesn’t lose and right wing viewers of his clickbate.
Sorry should habe clarified, I know shit about US politics. I’m from Europe.
I seriously wish this were the case. As someone who genuinely finds policy and political theory fascinating I wish I could have actual good faith policy discussions with people who don’t mostly agree with me, but the unfortunate fact is the Republican party doesn’t have any clear policy other than “whatever is good for the party members individually” or more currently “whatever Trump wants this week” (seriously, what isn’t listed at all on the shiny new Republican Party Platform speaks volumes to how the party doesn’t have any coherent political ideology to even pay lip service to)