Mhm. I'm having a hard time defining centrist as a legitimate term. The definition I gave before, you referred to as fake centrist. But then what is a real centrist?
So I'll ask you for some examples: What would be centrist view on firearm rights?
Or perhaps their view on abortion?
Your reply could use some touching up on the grammar. But that doesn't take away from your point. It just makes it harder to understand.
For your question: Centrist are bad because they are unwilling to pick a side and stand with it. They may think they are aligning with both. But that is not how the world works. When it comes down to two sides, you either pick one, oppose both, or stand out of the way for either.
Centrist provide a large problem in politics, because they swing to each side, according to what seems more favorable to them in that election. Which can mean direct benefits for them or their community, or something as simple as the status quo.
Your reply could use some touching up on the grammar. But that doesn't take away from your point. It just makes it harder to understand.
For your question: Centrist are bad because they are unwilling to pick a side and stand with it. They may think they are aligning with both. But that is not how the world works. When it comes down to two sides, you either pick one, oppose both, or stand out of the way for either.
Centrist provide a large problem in politics, because they swing to each side, according to what seems more favorable to them in that election. Which can mean direct benefits for them or their community, or something as simple as the status quo.
The chosen language of your statement is off putting. But I do see the validity in your question.
For a practical solution to my phased epidemic, is to make voting a privilege earned through responsibilities. Such as jury, conscription, payment for registry. Not to mention in person voting
By simply adding conditions that have to be meet, most centrist would give up voting entirely.
But as it stands currently, voting is a free self expression of belief. Kind of like protesting.
Solutions for the voting crisis aren't difficult. I agree with you on that.
If a lot of responsibilities like jury duty and conscription, were solely directed at registered voters, it would eliminate many of these centrist. Especially if you had to pay money to vote. And it was all done in person.
@waffleHouse117@RabbiPoupko I hope for the day that Palestine is a location on the world map. Not a populated economic zone.
If you attack, rape, kill, unarmed defenseless women and children, then you deserve every bit of retaliation that comes your way.
@filerasdfasdf@JianZhou1@RabbiPoupko I do not understand why people wish to suffer stupidly. All that I can hope, is we remove anyone who wishes to die for Islam.
Though I hope it is swift and painless, I do wish death upon the Muslim world. For you are all just evil people.
And as much as Christians prioritize the lives of Children. Muslims do not. Once they get old enough to carry a gun, they are marched into battle to die for their religion.
So you believe in religion, but do not have the evidence to proclaim one more true than another? I ask such a specific question because that is the problem I have. It all comes down to evidence for me. How can someone prove to me that God, and everything he deems true, is certainly true?
That said, I do not believe anything is more important than Christianity within a person. I say Christianity in this context, because that is where American higher morality comes from.
Morality is religious. Those you'll meet on Twitter such as communist and Atheist are notably nihilistic. Incredibly so actually. I would go as far to say, the more measurably nihilistic someone is, the less moral they are. It's my anecdotal proof that morality is strictly religious.
I was attempting to talk about a civil war without explicitly saying so. How ever, I must have stayed up to late before making that comment. So I would like to rephrase it better.
Americas peace is partly through our represented democracy. The public, or a percent of them who vote in favor for who they want in power; to represent their interests.
This core concept upholds a great deal of stability in our nation. How ever the elections for these candidates has fallen to a poor excuse for even our time, in some cases. That said the value of voting can not be under appreciated. But the power we hold by voting is not concrete. Elections can go either way now.
One big issue right now is the lack of representation. Many views held in America can not be voted in, because no running candidate holds them. Trump has been amazing for this. But he is still a populist. Lacking the hard stances someone like Charlie Kirk had.
Then brings us to another issue. The Death of a great man. Charlie was voted on. Not in a political election. But an election of our hearts. He was a great man that was supported by a great deal of young men. But for his influence he was killed. The closest thing to represented democracy outside of Trump running for president, was gunned down by the extreme radical left. A political group who never stops pushing for more death and murder. Abortion being such a case. If the passionate left really thought unborn children were just a clump of cells, they would not find such satisfaction in destroying them.
Which brings me to what I am afraid is going to happen. Either a revolt or civil war. Those are two possibilities. But there are countless. The moral and philosophical decay of this country has lead us down such a horrible path, something terrible is going to happen In order for this country to course correct. Something terrible enough that everyone is effected and forced to abandon their luxury beliefs. I do not want this. But so much has failed to bring us to this point. Unfortunately there is no turning back. We are on a path towards a great collapse. It can be delayed. But not avoided.
I'm at a loss. On one hand I do want to debate further with you. But my issue is with your written articulation. I'm not going to insult you on your written English. But if you would like, we can do a Voice Call sometime in DM.
I'm not offering this as to try and obtain something from you. I just feel that backing away from a debate before I can obtain something useful from it, is a waste. And seeing as how you've responded to me this far, I'm wondering if you'd be willing to take this further. Or let it end now?
Even if the world is going crazier, idle laughter at it's worsening condition is not going to make it better.
Not only that, I would argue that a lack of moral integrity in the face of what seeks to destroy us, is far worse than anything you've mentioned so far.
For without moral integrity, what is there to defend?
But I also need to quell my radical tempter when I speak to you. For my ideals are entirely religious. Seeking a death with purpose rather than indifference or reluctant grief. And yes I do believe that life is a sentence of death. But what we do in the face of what our existence can not change, is the highest goal man can achieve. Especially if it's the hardest man can achieve.
But you may be a nihilist. If so, than by all means believe what ever you like. For that moral framework is entirely whimsical and untrustworthy. Beliefs change with feelings because true honesty in the face of a nihilist world view, is the acceptance of psychopathy
@JShields21993@Ghostofcynthia@MAGADevilDog@FBI Isn't the head of the FBI under Trumps administration the one who said that there was no Epstein client list. That he only trafficked children to himself?
I'm sure what possesses you to write such monstrous ideas, is nothing short of what possesses the conquerors who would see my country fallen. Women raped. Men beheaded. If a civil war breaks out, know the side that you've already chosen here, may be the one you die for. Wars start with opposing ideas. And I can not oppose what you've said more.
The idea of it being entertaining, or funny, to watch our country be devoured by the appetites of devils, makes you sick beyond my comprehension.
Social security is interesting because it just works as a tax with the promise of money returned.
We pay them for our retirement. They spend that money on wars, and everything they can't budget for. But once we retire they are forced to pay back all of the money they took, which I imagine is all of it.
The theory behind Social Security is valid. It works off the assumption that people won't plan that far ahead, and when they are to old to work, they will have to way to sustain themselves. Which from this line of thinking it is more than fair to force retirement plans onto people. But the way they handle that retirement money, is laughable.
The average social security user takes more out of social security than they will put in. Which means the government not only has to pay us back, they also have to pay into each persons retirement.
Making each person who retires a drain on the tax payer. Which is even funnier, because that was the issue Social Security was created to solve.
How you describe this argument makes it difficult for me to understand your stance on it. But none the less I will respond to what you've said.
Social security is a failed program. It is not sustainable.
National defense is without a doubt important. But agencies like the CIA are nor moral or practical for achieving it. Unemployment is worth debating for me. Insurance is necessary in theory, but through unregulated requirement it has become a type of taxation.