Pro-voting and anti-rioting.

Forums:
Email this Topic • Print this Page

As the left and right become more extreme and the country becomes more polarized, I find myself more centrist.

1. I am strongly on the side of the Democrats when it comes to voting rights. There is no excuse for restricting voting hours or making it harder to vote. The voting restrictions are clearly racially injust. Many of the new restrictions aren't even for security. and with the almost insignficant levels of fraud, there is no excuse.

2. I am strongly on the side of the Republicans when it comes to rioting. Violence, looting, threats, and public intimidation are not forms of peaceful protest, nor do they have any place in a democracy. Our greatest progress from racial justice to gay marriage have come without looting or setting things on fire.

Our country is so polarized to the two extremes that it seems like anyone who supports voting rights also supports looting rights. It doesn't seem like these two things logically should go together.

Able2know seems as polarized to the two extremes as the United States is as a whole. Is there anyone else who takes the centrist position?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 669 • Replies: 22

No top replies

View best answer, chosen by maxdancona

@maxdancona,

Sort of. That is, I can be right or left. Seldom in the middle, though it might average out that way.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

You keep saying you're centrist but I don't see it. Buying into the Big Lie is your forte. Ok, you'll justify some democratic ideals but mainly you'll side with conservative Republican talking points, which, are proven wrong time and time again. Yet you refuse any reasonable attempt to clear up your inconsistencies.

I'll try though.

2 Replies

https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/

https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-race-and-ethnicity-suburbs-health-racial-injustice-7edf9027af1878283f3818d96c54f748

0 Replies

@neptuneblue,

What is your definition of a "centrist", Neptune?

You have it backwards, I "justify some [Republican] ideals but mainly side with [liberal Democratic] talking points". I voted for Obama. I voted for Hillary (even though I felt dirty doing so). I voted for Biden Not that it matters, a Republican who accepted some Democratic points would meet the definition of a centrist and would have my respect.

Is there any place where you (without irony or sarcasm) admit that Republicans or Conservatives make a valid point? If there is, you haven't explained it.

There are two extremes in this country. You have almost complete, unquestioning loyalty to your side. That is why, just like the extreme conservatives, you can't even recognize when the facts don't fit your narrative.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I am strongly on the side of the Republicans when it comes to rioting.

So Max supports the attack on the state Capitol in January but opposes the peaceful protests against police violence.

Figures.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

maxdancona wrote:

I am strongly on the side of the Republicans when it comes to rioting.

So Max supports the attack on the state Capitol in January but opposes the peaceful protests against police violence.

Figures.

Geez Izzy! You are acting like an idiot.

I have consistently condemned the attack on the Capitol.

I also oppose the use of violence arson and looting from the left.

There is no reason you can't oppose both extremes.. You seem to be having a problem with this.

0 Replies

Looting and arson in the context of a political protest is wrong.

Is anyone on the left even willing to agree with this simple statement? It is the inability to conede even the most basic of points that defines an extreme.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Looting and arson in the context of a political protest is wrong.

Those sorts of activities are clearly wrong no matter the context, why restrict it to political protest?

Do you really think that Democrats support looting and arson?

2 Replies

@neptuneblue,

A centrist would not start a thread about when it would be justified to kill a black man, especially not in such masturbatory detail.

You’re right about the big lie. The Democrats are not remotely extreme. By the standards of other liberal democracies they are mainstream. Pretty much all our Westminster politicians would be in the Democrat camp which is a pretty broad church. Biden would be Conservative and Ocasio Cortez would be Labour.

It’s hard to imagine any members of Westminster who would be as far right as your Republican Party, maybe a few on the extreme right of the Conservative party like Jacob Rees Mogg, but we’re talking about a handful of people.

UKIP, for all its success in European elections has never managed to get anyone elected to Westminster. They are too extreme.

The UK is one of the most right wing countries in Europe as well.

So in terms of other Liberal Democracies Max’s centralism places him between the right of Conservatives and far right extremists.

That is not centrist at all.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Izzy is being silly. The fact that Izzy masturbates to my threads is a little more information that I needed to know (if it makes him happy, then fine... but he should keep it to himself).

I suppose "Extreme" is in one sense relative. If you are in an ideological bubble, everyone outside the bubble can seem extreme. In the bubble any disagreement is seen in the most horrible way possible.

Most people line up dutifully into one of two ideological camps. They hate each other and refuse to listen to anything the other side says no matter what the facts are. That is my definition of "extreme".

0 Replies

@hightor,

Nobody supports looting and arson. It’s a smear tactic used by the right whenever it occurs.

I remember Neil Kinnock calling a bunch of rioters toy town revolutionaries during the Poll Tax riots, a malign piece of legislation which the Labour Party opposed, and they opposed it through legitimate protests.

Rioters and looters are criminals, they should be prosecuted as should police who use heavy handed techniques against legitimate protesters.

0 Replies

The fact is that looting and arson have happened multiple times at Black Lives Matter protests.

The fact is that legislation designed to punish looting and arson during political protests are being opposed by the left. If Izzy can admit these two facts, and still say that he doesn't support looting and arson... I would be impressed with him.

I don't think he can even admit that it is happening inspite of non-biased reporting and photographs.

With extremism is it is impossible to concede anything. There is no recognition here that the conservatives might have a valid point on anything.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

The fact is that legislation designed to punish looting and arson during political protests are being opposed by the left.

Looting and arson are already criminal offenses. So it's possible that opposition to these laws — which sound like Republican wedge issues — are seen as ways to crack down on legitimate protests. Instead of arresting people who are actually involved in criminal behavior (who often are merely opportunists with no connection to political protest), overzealous authorities may decide to move in and arrest masses of people simply for being present at a demonstration when someone breaks into a liquor store in the neighborhood.

The idea of drafting specific exceptions for issues around political protests seems disingenuous to me. For instance, normally drivers are expected to avoid people in the roadway. But now, if there's a political cause involved, several states are considering bills which would protect drivers who run over protestors.

1 Reply

@hightor,

We have had scandals over here with police infiltrating peaceful environmental activists. Some of the undercover police had relationships and even children with some of the women they were spying on.

It’s the politicisation of the police, instead of stopping criminal behaviour they’re targeting the opponents of the establishment.

Then the right makes a huge song and dance about the left’s opposition in the same way they make a huge song and dance about the left supporting voter fraud when they oppose ant voting measures.

0 Replies

The point of this thread is the ability to think independently. You can agree one ideological side on most issues, and still agree with the other side on some issues. These two issues are my actual beliefs... but the specific issues don't matter.

The two extremes are in lockstep unquestioning agreement on every issue. The left will answer with their ideological narrative, their facts, their tropes. They don't even consider any other perspective. You see that happening on this thread. People on the political right extreme do the same thing.

Even worse are the attacks to punish anyone questioning of the ideological narrative. I agree with Izzy on at least 80% of the issues (including his latest threads about police infiltrating peaceful groups. Ironically, Izzy gets more enraged when I agree with him then when I disagree... I think it is frightens him which is hy he denies it.

But 80% agreement isn't enough an ideological extreme. This variance in opinion can't be tolerated.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

These specific issues aren't the point.

The question is whether there is any issue on which you accept that the other ideological side makes a valid point?

This lining up in predictable ideological sides to shout at each other must be tiring.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

As the left and right become more extreme and the country becomes more polarized, I find myself more centrist.

1. I am strongly on the side of the Democrats when it comes to voting rights. There is no excuse for restricting voting hours or making it harder to vote. The voting restrictions are clearly racially injust. Many of the new restrictions aren't even for security. and with the almost insignficant levels of fraud, there is no excuse....

I'd like to suggest an idea to you. The conservatives who you believe favor making it harder for legitimate voters to vote do not. They (by which, of course, I mean 99.9%) do want every legitimate vote counted. Their motivation is to prevent cheating, which they believe is rampant. One example of cheating would, for instance, be filling out blank voter ballots with the names of people who are dead, or who have moved to another jurisdiction, or who are not likely to vote, and mixing them in with the real ballots. Consider the possibility that this is the motivation of the conservatives who you see trying to pass rules which you consider restrictive.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Brandon, please read my post (three posts up) that has the words "think independently" in bold.

It applies to your side too.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I find myself more centrist.

You're such a "centrist" that you think that Trump telling people to "Peacefully and Patriotically March to the Capitol" (his words verbatim) is a call to violence.

Pu-lease, you're a far left radical extremist. That is a #fact.

0 Replies

Forums
» Pro-voting and anti-rioting.

Read Question
Reply to All

Pro-voting and anti-rioting.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know