Meant to respond to this. No, not on its own it isn't. It's just a description of where someone falls on the political spectrum.
My issue with SOME centrists is their insistence on half-measures that intend to placate both sides in the name of compromise or pragmatism. There are a number of problems with this, especially in terms of American politics:
1) Many centrists fall victim to the fallacy of false-compromise, also know as "the right answer must be somewhere in the middle of the extreme positions," or some variation of this.
2) The Overton window in the U.S. has been dragged so far right by the extremists who have hijacked the Republican, that compromises often end up being, at best, centre-right policies.
3) Placating GOP voters is very rarely an effective strategy for winning elections. They tend to be about as tribal and partisan as it gets.
4) The half-measures centrists implement can do more harm than good. There are some instances where either the left or right policy positions are the correct ones, but the centrist approach provides us with a watered down version that is ineffective and/or worse from a policy perspective, but has the effect of creating hostility towards the policy position they're watering down (e.g. Mayor Pete's poorly thought out "Medicare for all who want it" plan).
5) #4 can be particularly damaging if it's a watered down version of a leftist policy or program which advocates for greater government interventions. If these government programs end up being ineffective or poorly administered, it feeds the narrative pushed by the right that government intervention is bad, thereby contributing to #2.
6) Because of #s 1-5 many progressives/populist leftists feel disenfranchised politically, which inevitably leads to either apathy, nihilism, or radicalization. This can often lead to lower voter turnout from leftists, which then perpetuates this whole cycle.
7) Because centrist economic policies are essentially centre-right to right-wing in nature, they have quite often contributed to the economic devastation of the working class, which has been a major factor in the rise of Trumpism and right-wing populism in general (right-wing populism is essentially a gateway to fascism but I'm trying to be charitable).
I agree with this. For example, Globalization, trade partnerships and free trades is a crazy centrist position that neither the right nor the left support.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
I agree with this. For example, Globalization, trade partnerships and free trades is a crazy centrist position that neither the right nor the left support.
At what point is a compromise better than nothing (because no agreement could be reached)?
Gabbard was a very weak candidate throughout her whole campaign, and her policies on anything other than foreign policy were nearly non-existent. Not to mention she was sort of a Republican in disguise.
Instead you have a guy who has served in the executive branch in the past, who has passed meaningful legislation before, and already has clear plans for how to recover from the current disaster, especially economically. Don't forget, he was a key planner to the economic recovery in 2008.
Kamala Harris will also be key to reforming the justice department after Trump did his best to gut it from the inside out. Law and order will hopefully be restored in a non-partisan way. Merrick Garland is a good start to that.
Seriously...Tulsi Gabbard? What a strange hill to make your stand on.
Edit: Also...Fuzz, buddy? Less bacon, dude. You'll thank me when you live past 60.
Granted, you likely followed the candidates far more than I did, given you live there and all. But ‘hill to make my stand’? It’s literally the first post I’ve ever made with her name.
I’m curious how you can call her a ‘republican in disguise’ immediately after saying her policies are non-existent?
She opposes foreign military intervention and calls out the regime-change war policies of both parties presidential history, objects to big business and PAC groups controlling the dem. Party, she repeatedly talks debating the issues and substance of arguments outside of party lines, reiterates that at congresswoman her job is to represent her constituents. Her views in support of gun control are strong, while having a sensible view on no-fly lists. She called for an end of the war on drugs and was a vocal supporter of cannabis reform and expunging criminal records for related offences. She called for America to stop supporting Saudi Arabia. Etc etc.
She also served in the national guard for 16 years and is youngest member to Hawaiian congress. She blatantly called out the Democratic Party for their own political wrongdoings while on stage with them. And I believe she showed an awful lot of poise and professionalism when she had to address or speak to the wave of condemnation and accusations that, as so far as I’ve seen, stem from nothing more than people parroting each other.
One hell of an impressive individual by my books. Add minority, woman, young and veteran and that seems like a pretty damn good candidate. Except she called out Democrats for being driven by corruption, so clearly she’s some sort of communist plug.
Oh yeah, and didn’t she throw her supper behind Bernie Sanders ultimately? Republican by any other name or what?
__________________
No, no…I’m not sloppy, or lazy. This is a sign of the boredom.
I'm not saying she's a bad candidate for her former position, but she was never a serious presidential candidate. Of everything you listed, it has to do with national security, foreign policy, and domestic criminal justice policy. That's her wheelhouse, but it's too limited to handle all the responsibilities of a president.
I don't view her "calling out democrats" as genuine. It seemed to be a political play to gain some notoriety. However, she never really backed up the rhetoric with anything tangible.
She's an ex-congressperson, and didn't serve a major role on any committees. Her legislation contributions were minimal and military focused, but did put forward a bill requiring paper trails for elections to avoid fraud, so that was good at least.
However, when the Mueller report came out she essentially said it was good that no conspiracy between the president and a foreign power was found, completely (and intentionally) missing the point of the entire report and Mueller's own comments on it.
I'm just saying, she didn't have the experience or credentials necessary to be president. Just seems like a weird choice for your favorite.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
If we can't fall in love with replaceable bottom 6 players then the terrorists have won.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cali Panthers Fan For This Useful Post:
I agree with some of it, but not all of it. Just as you would expect a centrist to lol...
I don't even know if I am a centrist to be honest. I have some views that could be looked at as further left and further right, but if you could calculate an average (which isn't really possible), I would average on the center. I just like to keep the more controversial things to myself.
I hate the word "compromise" though. I believe in working to form a consensus through debate. Yeah, that does mean sometimes you need to negotiate some things you want that are less important or not a priority to give the other side what they want. I don't see why that is a bad thing though.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
At what point is a compromise better than nothing (because no agreement could be reached)?
Obviously you still have to govern, so compromise is necessary at times. It just seems that the compromises almost always conveniently benefit the centrist and right-wing donor/capital class at the expense of the working class.
There are many policy positions in the U.S. that have greater than 60% support (meaning support from both Democrats and Republicans) that "for some reason" fail to pass no matter which party is in charge.
It's worth remembering the left doesn't have some monopoly on the working class. We all know the GOP is exceptional at getting the right wing working class to vote against their own best interest through culture war ####. So yeah there's issues where 60% have bipartisan support, but then the GOP is able to splinter off 15-20% of that support by tying an unrelated proposal, supported by someone pushing for the 60% issue, to communism or Planned Parenthood or Antifa/BLM or whatever, and then it's dead. I mean look at how hard they are pushing Biden as some sort of gateway to communism. The left wishes Biden was half as scary as the right makes him out to be.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
No problem with what Rube described in his critique of some centrists. I do have a problem with the ideas behind the video of wireframe, as I don't think it is correct to say that a centrist necessarily means that it holds a mishmash of ultimately irreconcilable ideas.
For me, anyway, I would describe a reasonable centrist position as capitalist, but who recognize that capitalism creates externalities that need to be addressed through regulation. I don't see with that frame, that it necessarily creates unhelpful compromise or weakness.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
I was merely pointing out that doing things to benefit the working class is a lot more complicated then just proposing things to benefit them. The working class is just as fractured as the rest of the country. Yeah it's easy to sell working class benefits to one segment, but then that other segment can be manipulated by unrelated matters. Minimum wage is a perfect example. To the left it's necessary to raise it to sustain a basic standard of living. To the right it's government overreach, anti free market, and one step closer to socialism. How you break down the barrier to get everyone on the same page is the challenge, and it ain't easy as we know.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
I was merely pointing out that doing things to benefit the working class is a lot more complicated then just proposing things to benefit them. The working class is just as fractured as the rest of the country. Yeah it's easy to sell working class benefits to one segment, but then that other segment can be manipulated by unrelated matters. Minimum wage is a perfect example. To the left it's necessary to raise it to sustain a basic standard of living. To the right it's government overreach, anti free market, and one step closer to socialism. How you break down the barrier to get everyone on the same page is the challenge, and it ain't easy as we know.
Except the working class overwhelmingly supports minimum wage increases across party lines. The divide between left and right working class people is generally over cultural issues. On issues such as trade, health care, foreign policy, etc., they're actually much closer than most Republicans and Fox News would have you think.
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
Meant to respond to this. No, not on its own it isn't. It's just a description of where someone falls on the political spectrum.
My issue with SOME centrists is their insistence on half-measures that intend to placate both sides in the name of compromise or pragmatism. There are a number of problems with this, especially in terms of American politics:
1) Many centrists fall victim to the fallacy of false-compromise, also know as "the right answer must be somewhere in the middle of the extreme positions," or some variation of this.
2) The Overton window in the U.S. has been dragged so far right by the extremists who have hijacked the Republican, that compromises often end up being, at best, centre-right policies.
3) Placating GOP voters is very rarely an effective strategy for winning elections. They tend to be about as tribal and partisan as it gets.
4) The half-measures centrists implement can do more harm than good. There are some instances where either the left or right policy positions are the correct ones, but the centrist approach provides us with a watered down version that is ineffective and/or worse from a policy perspective, but has the effect of creating hostility towards the policy position they're watering down (e.g. Mayor Pete's poorly thought out "Medicare for all who want it" plan).
5) #4 can be particularly damaging if it's a watered down version of a leftist policy or program which advocates for greater government interventions. If these government programs end up being ineffective or poorly administered, it feeds the narrative pushed by the right that government intervention is bad, thereby contributing to #2.
6) Because of #s 1-5 many progressives/populist leftists feel disenfranchised politically, which inevitably leads to either apathy, nihilism, or radicalization. This can often lead to lower voter turnout from leftists, which then perpetuates this whole cycle.
7) Because centrist economic policies are essentially centre-right to right-wing in nature, they have quite often contributed to the economic devastation of the working class, which has been a major factor in the rise of Trumpism and right-wing populism in general (right-wing populism is essentially a gateway to fascism but I'm trying to be charitable).
You're definition of Centrist seems to revolve around picking the middle on all issues.
I see a Centrist as someone who is willing to look at both sides but very well may side far left or far right on any given issue; and yes down the middle on others.
It's not someone who is always in the Centre.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Winsor_Pilates For This Useful Post:
You're definition of Centrist seems to revolve around picking the middle on all issues.
I see a Centrist as someone who is willing to look at both sides but very well may side far left or far right on any given issue; and yes down the middle on others.
It's not someone who is always in the Centre.
Except the working class overwhelmingly supports minimum wage increases across party lines. The divide between left and right working class people is generally over cultural issues. On issues such as trade, health care, foreign policy, etc., they're actually much closer than most Republicans and Fox News would have you think.
I mean that's kinda my point. On it's own the right working class will support minimum wage increases. And then FOX ties supporting the minimum wage increase with supporting Planned Parenthood, Antifa, and eventually becoming Venezuela, and it's dead. I think that's the oddest part of all of this. Abortion, for instance, rarely directly affects most voters. Minimum wage quite obviously does. And yet they are able to get people to vote against a minimum wage candidate for the anti-abortion candidate, time and time again. It's a special kind of sorcery. I think we all wish we could figure out how to break the spell.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following User Says Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
