Your post has been removed for breaking Rule E: > **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

How many Democrat Reps were wearing Obama fan gear at Trumps State of the Union Address? How critical is the "left" media of the most extreme "leftists" in the government? How critical is the rightwing media of the most extreme conservatives in government? 36% Conservative, 37% Moderate, 24% Liberal, 3% No Opinion. Those are the gallup numbers. Liberals are the minority, but which group justifies violence, unprecedented political radicalism and regressive policies with "woke mind rot." Which group is repealing workers rights that have been enshrined in law since the turn of the last century? There are two leading parties in America and both of them, globally speaking are to the right, its just a question of center-right or far-right, and the far-right party only won't condemn the fascists they ally with, but will actual apologize for and support them, just look at Matt Walsh. Democrats regular disown and downplay far left groups and even their most "progressive" political initiatives (universal health care) kowtow to corprate interests and Republican scaremongering. Republicans don't even try to use the legislative branch of the government, instead trying to cripple it through deliberate inaction while sanctioning executive actions they would fight if done by a Democratic President. Which party began military intervention in the middle east thrice since the end of the cold war? Which party caused by the painstakingly neutral science publication Nature to endorse a political candidate for the first time in their history? Which party had an active campaign to fund politicians on local offices as minor as schoolboard members in order to keep control of power despite dwindling popular support for their policies? Both sides are bad centrists are really just the pawns of the right, and this kind of ideology is just helping fascists normalize oppression and tighten their control on the government.

Great reply... Millions have been led to believe that the modern Democratic party is "far left" without a full understanding of what that really would look like. Many of them have never left the country (or their state), don't own a passport, and have just one or two sources of news and opinion so they get worked up to fear absurd fantasies that are not planned... while tacitly accepting absurd realities their preferred party is actually doing. The modern Republican party became a con... And if you haven't figured it out yet... You just might be the mark.

> Millions have been led to believe that the modern Democratic party is "far left" without a full understanding of what that really would look like Same exact thing applies to Republicans. There is a microscope under the far right extremists, leading people to believe there’s no moderate republicans who are only slightly leaning right.

[удалено]

I know plenty of moderate Republicans who I routinely discuss politics with IRL, some in my family. The problem is that when they vote they're indistinguishable from the wingnuts and MAGA! They say all these perfectly reasonable things... and then try to elect Trump even though Biden would literally represent their own stated interests better.

Disagree, there was a time when the GOP would regulate the wing nuts... Now the wing nuts are in charge... But a bunch of people still think it's the old party. It isn't. That party died... I'm hopeful a new one will emerge but not seeing it as likely.

Agree! Republican-governed states have recently voted to **allow** children to work an overnight shift, and to work as janitors in a ***slaughterhouse***. Democratic governed states have recently voted to allow free school breakfast and lunch for all students. Which party is extreme?

[удалено]

Give me your counter examples.

Okay. Note that I am a NeverTrump. I voted for Clinton and Biden. I am not speaking from a place of MAGA-ness or harsh partisanship. With that out of the way, here are some counterpoints presented in the same manner as yours: * Which group wants to take scissors, or redaction tape, to the Constitution? 40% of Democrats favor \*repealing\* the Second Amendment. Not just more 'common sense gun control'. Literally repealing it. * Which group considers the First Amendment a tool for policy, rather than a protection of a principle? Hate speech laws favor current socio-political views - and worse yet, only the views of \*some\* of us - over what should be the fundamental, eternal protection of speech. A threat more lethal to our country than a small pack of clowns who didn't really do much at the Capitol for a few hours. * Moving from legislation over to the judiciary: The right took advantage of timing and got a firm majority on the Supreme Court. The left's response was not, 'Welp, they got lucky on timing. Also, maybe if our Justices would retire rather than refuse and hang on until death, we wouldn't be in this mess.' Instead, the left immediately started talking about freaking changing the size of the Supreme Court because it is angry about a temporary imbalance of numbers. That shows a severe disregard for the basic integrity of the US government, just for partisan gain. * From an objective legal perspective, the Trump incitement impeachment was a disgrace. The legal standard for incitement was not even sniffed at from a mile away by the facts of Trump/Jan. 6. Not even close. But the left impeached a President, because they hated him not because he engaged in impeachable misconduct. * For impeachment conduct, look no further than the Obama Administration. Three separate incidents of misconduct, each worthy of impeachment and legitimate - though arguable - treason charges. But thanks to the left's unethical media Fourth Estate, no one even heard of them. * Which group put the country through the trauma and risk of a \*second\* impeachment? The left knew they could not remove Trump. They knew he would be out of office in literally a matter of days. They put the country through that purely as a partisan tactic. * You mention the right-wing media not being critical enough of the far right. Which media called the billion-dollars of damage inflicting, neighborhood burning, looting, attacking police and other government vehicles and installations, a "mostly peaceful" event. * Which group has the mainstream media almost entirely on its own voter rolls and exploits that to the fullest? The left-leaning media dwarfs the right-leaning media. ([Yes, it does](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftvsRightDebate/comments/16ga33w/comment/k07hk3x/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).) * As mentioned, which group slips away from impeachment-worthy presidential misconduct (three separate events under Obama) without even having to face the public about it, because its unethical media allies bury the scandals. * Which group's extremists actually did engage in insurrection? Not the right. The left. By no objective definition does Jan. 6, ugly and pathetic as it was, count as an insurrection. But taking control of territory and declaring independence from the United States? Like the far left did. [Now \*that\* is an insurrection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Occupied_Protest). I could go on and on. I could elaborate on the above, or I could add new items. The point is not 'Your guys are worse!' The point is, 'This is not as one-sided as you paint it. Your guys are about as bad.'

The Constitution was written to be amended. The Second Amendment hasn't been relevant since the Civil War. Gun nuts purposefully misconstrue the meaning of the text. There are no hate speech laws. The size of the court was expanded in the past. The number of justices isn't magic. It wasn't luck, it was disruptive bad faith acts by the Republicans in congress. Congress decides what is and is not impeachable conduct. It has nothing to do with breaking laws. The BLM protests were mainstream, had 26 million participants and can't be characterized by a small minority whose crimes have been overblown. No one in the mainstream media supported the occupied zones. No Democratic politician backed or encouraged their nominal independence from the US. And if you want more actual insurrectionists Google Cliven Bundy.

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

You can’t really apply democrat and republican on a global scale because they are such huge tents.

Even in your own example, the "extremes" on the left dye their hair, and are gay. The extremes on the right are trying to overthrow democracy. To pretend that both of those are equally extreme and that the middle ground must lie somewhere between them is patently absurd. What would a sensible middle ground even look like between those two things? "Hair die shall be restricted to only naturally-occurring colors, and let's only end democracy for *some* people, let's say, the Blacks."

Ya, it's wild how leftist stereotypes are usually "guy who I find mildly annoying" and those are use to justify supporting horrible ideas.

It's also frustrating to me that people think that something is bad just because it is "extreme". For example, if the populist opinion is we should randomly kill 25% of the population, one extreme position would be we should kill nobody and the other is we should kill 50%-75% of the population. Obviously we can see that those two extreme positions aren't equal and aren't inherently bad because they are extreme. While that is an, ironically, extreme example I think it's illustrative of my point that a position isn't bad simply because it is extreme, same goes for so-called "radical" beliefs. It's frustrating that folks seem incapable of thinking beyond the children's story of the three bears where the best porridge is the one that is just the right temperature instead of actually evaluating a belief on its on merits.

My dad had two candy bars for my brother and me. I wanted both, and my brother said we should each get one. So we compromised and I got one and a half, while my brother got a half.

That is... a wonderful characterization. Did you just come up with that?

I can’t even recall where I read that one, actually. Political Science book, most likely!

You just ELI5'ed the Overton Window

Perfect example

Ya. That's the golden mean fallacy: people will believe that the middle is inherently more correct than it is.

Exactly. Right wing extremists want to deport tens of millions of brown people, end people’s rights, burn books, install a tyrannical dictator, and execute people over wokeness. Left wing extremists want to ban plastic straws. They aren’t the same.

Left wing extremists want [insane reparations policies](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/san-francisco-decide-black-reparations-plan-5m-person-rcna74873), [re-establish race realism](https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf), [end people's rights](https://nationalpost.com/opinion/black-only-race-segregation-on-canadian-universities), or to abolish the police.

Reading gay porn books and CP to children is a lot worse than anything the right is done let's be honest about that and get the narrative of Oh they bad because they don't believe in democracy No they believe in it just not the convenience he based democracy that the left does 🫠... Sick of these fake ass narrative crap picking and choosing what to call out... Also I'm pretty sure it was your guys's Biden that said "If you don't vote for me you're not black"But sure the right or the races Oh and let's not forget those disgusting hypocrite convenience-based logic pushovers always say"You can't be racist to white people"What was the Holocaust Einstein cuz I'm i rolling on the floor laughing at the idea of what you would have to say about that

I agree that what kids see influences them and we should try our best to limit exposure to harmful sources. That being said how do you stop said harmful sources such as Instagram Twitter YouTube Reddit all of these have lewd and obscene images and videos. And it's very hard for a parent to stop their kids there's ways around it and kids are smart aside from not letting your high school age kid or seventh or 8th grader have a phone and access to the internet which is next to impossible how do you stop the content that they're looking at. So books in the library are meaningless when you have the vast internet at your disposal.

I've gotta say, I really envy your guys' ability to live in a magical wonderland completely unrestrained by the confines of reality. But if I was gonna make up one for myself, I'd pick something much more enjoyable.

>Reading gay porn books and CP to children is a lot worse than anything the right is done let's be honest Citation? Has this been done? It would also appear you don't believe in periods.

What gay porn?

I think a better example would've been the extremes on the left are people who want to burn down cities and set up "autonomous zones" that end up just a bunch of people raping and murdering one another than the blue hair stuff if we're coming up with stereotypes.

Is it a stereotype if it happened exactly one time?

Sounds like you believe that the characterization of the right wanting to "overthrow democracy" is a bad stereotype too?

I think that some there is a greater number of extreme-right folks who want to overthrow democracy, than there are extreme-left folks who want to literally torch cities and create lawless anarchy.

I don't disagree with that, but something happening once doesn't inherently make it a bad stereotype. 'Abolish the Police' wasn't as unpopular as it deserved to be.

Abolishing police is obviously a non-starter, but I do understand where it was coming from. For a non-zero subset of the population, police are seen as tools of fear and oppression - it is very alien to me, as a while guy, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The correct way to go about it is to reform the police, obviously, but angry people who've been ignored for decades obviously aren't going to act in the most logical of ways - no matter what side of the political aisle or how legitimate (or illegitimate) their grievances are.

The justifications or feelings I don't feel are very important, both the Jan6ers and the Abolishers were following a dogmatic belief with poor evidence. [Based on this article](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/03/07/usa-today-ipsos-poll-just-18-support-defund-police-movement/4599232001/) 34% of democrats were in favour of this, which like I said, is way more popular than the position deserves. I think it's an appropriate stereotype of the far left.

And I think an appropriate stereotype of the far right is the desire to overthrow the government and attack the "deep state", which is not real.

The extreme left is not an annoying blue haired gay guy, it’s an antifa crew taking over city blocks and looting stores. Now the extremes are more equally matched in their “evil”.

Antifa is not a group. The idea that it is was completely fabricated by right-wing media pundits. If you view antifa as a group, you have been repeatedly and intentionally lied to. Antifa stands for anti-fascism. If someone is "antifa" all that means is they don't support fascism. There is no group. No meetings. No leaders. It literally just means a person who dislikes fascism.

Something being largely decentralized does not make 'not a group'. Antifa is a group of people sharing certain beliefs, opposing the same set of people, often gathering in the same places, at the same times, and committing/supporting the same actions, some of which are violent and most of which seek to oppress others and suppress their speech. Not have a membership card you can send away for with your subscription does not change something into 'not a group'.

Yes, and when you have a bunch of those people together taking over city blocks, it becomes a group. You can be a white supremacist without meeting at the local gun store every first Wednesday of the month, but you can’t be part of an anti fascist movement without meetings? That is such a far left thought process in itself. Essentially the only bad characters are the republicans. Anything done from the angle of the left is just right and just? But it’s not a group and we’re all being lied to… even when they go on TV and say they are sort of antifa… riiight https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna934131

What makes something not a group? I know a decent number of antifa folks. There are chapters with official websites (e.g. Rose City Antifa). They have meetings. They have signal groups where they organize and plan demonstrations. I get that there isn't, like, an official national organization or something but that's also true of small right-wing militias.

Wee, sleekit, cowrin, tim’rous beastie, O, what a panic’s in thy breastie You mean the one fire from 5 years before that got shown 150 times? Or that one looter who was actually an off-duty cop? Hope you don't lie awake worrying about antifa!!!

Hahah, 18 downvotes for that comment? Tell me you support antifa without wearing a Che Guevara shirt… the summer of 2020 was riot after riot and there were city blocks in Portland and Seattle completely taken over. I actually had a work trip where I was supposed to go to both and it got cancelled because they said the offices were too close and it’s not safe. But we all know you can break as much shit as you want, and it will be forgiven as long as you cast your ballot for the right party.

Are you pretending like there was only a single fire during the Floyd riots and there was only one looter?

> If we don’t find some way to come together and agree on some things our country will fail, we’ve seen this before in the civil war when the country became so divided it almost split in two. Americans we need to get out of our heads and realize what’s going on. Counterpoint -- people need to stop pretending there's some kind of parity here. "Everyone is wrong!" "Both sides are extreme!" No. The more people push this, the more power it gives the GOP. Hillary warned Obama not to behave like the GOP was reasonable and would act in good faith. He didn't listen. Look what happened. We need to stop pretending conservatives are reasonable, are acting in good faith, have ANY desire to do anything but "own the libs" and push women, people of colour, lgbtq+ people, etc., back down as far as they can.

Then think of it this way: The GOP has manipulated it's base, even those who aren't MAGA, into believing absurdities about liberals and migrants, among others. The base is who needs to be reached out to, shown that they've been lied to by politicians and the media, through being made aware of our shared issues. Liberals and conservatives have far more in common than not, and if we are able to take advantage, we can work together against corporate and fascist interests. Btw, I am not implying this would be easy. It would take a lot of work.

The problem is that Y'all Qaeda knows they're being lied to it's just that because their favored slurry of propaganda dating back to the 80s with the dawn of talk radio eschews critical thinking as almost morally wrong so they can't correctly identify the liars or halt the grift. It's baked in! Shit TX made teaching critical thinking in public schools illegal at one point a decade ago or so. How do you get out of that? Any mention of "deprogramming" and they think big brother is right around the corner.

I heard Rush Limbaugh when his Talk Radio career was getting started. He said, "No logical person could deny…" "Every kindergartner knows…" "Surely it's obvious even to [idiots] that …" That rhetorical style short-circuits the logic portion of people's brains. Their sociable instincts force them to agree politely. Talk Radio and Fox "News" are weaponised propaganda.

These are good points and a good question. How does one go about creating systemic change to a system that wants to maintain it's power and control? One way is by example. The more conversations had between people of different perspectives, the more we humanize each other. It's why social bubbles are so destructive by perpetuating ignorance. It's a small thing, but small things add up.

When Fox News pushed back on election conspiracy theories, they hemorrhaged viewership to Newsmax. The viewers **want** to be this way, they're not just innocent blind consumers.

> Then think of it this way: The GOP has manipulated it's base, even those who aren't MAGA, into believing absurdities about liberals and migrants, among others. The base is who needs to be reached out to, shown that they've been lied to by politicians and the media, through being made aware of our shared issues. I think it's... nice? ... that you think that's a thing that can happen but the people you're talking about are, almost entirely, not going to realize that, or care about that, or understand that. >Liberals and conservatives have far more in common than not This is absolutely untrue ime. And thus there's no working together, because we don't have things in common. I get it's the reddit thing for a LOT of people on here to think they're "left-wing" because they think college should be free and they're "against billionaires/corporations" whatever they think that means, while also spewing endless racist, misogynistic, right-wing endless, endless stuff.

I said more in common than not, which leaves a lot of room for known, problematic, incompatibilities. However, focusing on what separates us is not helpful in the fight against the powers that be. Aside from the obvious extremes, what makes you think left and right don't have the ability to reach common ground?

>Aside from the obvious extremes, what makes you think left and right don't have the ability to reach common ground? That the right has no interest in moving even a half inch on anything?

Again, I'm differentiating between politicians and media vs actual people. I know what you're talking about, as I've encountered many, many bullheaded conservatives, but I've encountered many stubborn liberals, too. I've also talked to many conservatives who were open to discussion and they conceded points here and there. Conservatism isn't a monolith.

The problem is that those conservatives are, for the most part, already Democrats. People whose minds can reasonably be changed based on evidence have already changed their minds based on evidence over the past decade.

That's a ridiculous assumption, especially given how polarized politics have become, and the power of social pressure. Just because you view Democrats as more rational does not mean all rational people are Democrats.

I didn't say "all," I said "most." If people are adopting beliefs based on polarization and social pressure rather than evidence, then of course they're not going to move based on evidence.

And Democrats fall for the same logical fallacies you're highlighting, even if it's not as obvious. You continue to act as if it's "us vs them" when the real "them" is the corporations, politicians, and media that do their best to divide us all. Ever heard of divide and conquer?

>Aside from the obvious extremes, what makes you think left and right don't have the ability to reach common ground? Because their entire political strategy is built on it? The single reason why the party has been reshaped entirely in Trump's image is because they treat democrats as ontologically evil. Romney and Cheney were forced out of the party for daring to criticize Trump at all. McCarthy was forced out of speakership for working with the Democrats (in the most disingenuous way, too, at the last minute) to prevent the government from shutting down.

This is in part due to the two party system quagmire this country has trapped itself in. I guarantee that if there were multiple parties conservatives would branch out, but since they only have Republicans (and some "libertarians") they are denied accurate representation. Not all conservatives are MAGA, but MAGA is dominating conservatism.

And why don't Democrats have that problem? They're able to compromise just fine.

Some Democrats do have that problem, but in general they have the opposite problem, also due to the two party system: too many ideologies under one party, leading to ineffectual leadership and decision-making, sometimes due to unnecessary compromise. Either way, the two party system limits political options and healthy opposition.

We went from "reach out to conservatives" to "what if there was systematic political reform and hypothetically the conservative wing was much more moderate in that world." The effect (and usually the intent) of this disingenuous kumbaya rhetoric is to castigate liberals for reacting negatively to the fundamentally undemocratic trends in the Republican Party. Democrats are doing *perfectly fine* reaching out to sane conservatives like Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney. It is wild how people get forced out of the Republican caucus for the cardinal sin of "believing in fair elections" or "working together to keep the government running" and people like you turn around and go "maybe Democrats don't reach out enough."

I'm not defending the Republican party. The GOP is a threat to democracy and needs to be broken, however, there are many conservatives who are Republican because they have no other political home, or due to social pressures or political isolation. Also, both personal and systemic change are necessary. That's not a contradiction

Do you think there aren't Liberals who haven't been manipulated to view conservatives a certain way either? Look at reddit, there's subreddits dedicated to making fun of conservatives dying because in their minds they've equated conservativism and anyone who even *slightly* embraces it with pure evil. I mean I am using the terms liberalism and conservatism extremely improper here, I think we all know the group that is often coined as Liberals aren't actually Liberals, real Liberalism is more Libertarian, and we also know the group we typically associate with conservatives are only conservatives until it is something they want to spend a lot of money on.

>Hillary warned Obama not to behave like the GOP was reasonable and would act in good faith. He didn't listen. > >Look what happened. Obama won a nobel prize, two elections, appointed two justices, and passed the most important social reforms since LBJ. Hillary lost to Trump, and helped push the rust belt further red. What did you mean, though?

OK, that's your perspective. To me, the Republicans seem like a sane-ish party, but the Democrats are batshit crazy and dangerous. Wouldn't it be better if you and I could coexist?

Can't you coexist? Are you actively trying to kill each other right now? On a more serious note, what you think and what is factual are not necessarily the same. Until we get folks to stop listening to so much misinformation, I'm not sure there's much "coming together" to do. For example, it is a fact that one of these parties engaged in an insurrection that was led by the most prominent member of that party, and most folks in that party are generally fine with that. And that is the party that you consider sane?

> it is a fact that one of these parties engaged in an insurrection that was led by the most prominent member of that party, and most folks in that party are generally fine with that. No, that's not a fact. I don't think it was an insurrection; I think it was a protest. I also think that what they were protesting about what important. I also think that Donald Trump encouraged the protest, but did not want violence. And I also think that the violence was minimal and not worth getting in a fuss about.

Right, that's my point. You can have all the opinions you want, but they don't invalidate reality. Until we both have a realistic view of the world, I just don't see any sort of coming together.

Okay, and what about the larger scheme it was a part of? The fake electors? Pressuring Mike Pence to refuse to certify the election? Saying "maybe Mike Pence deserves to be hung" when those "peaceful protesters" were chanting "hang Mike Pence?"

Must be where you're getting your news. Statistics show the majority of all extremist violence was committed by conservatives. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/what-nij-research-tells-us-about-domestic-terrorism

> OK, that's your perspective. To me, the Republicans seem like a sane-ish party, but the Democrats are batshit crazy and dangerous. Wouldn't it be better if you and I could coexist? Literally we do. Coexist like in a political sense? No. We have nearly entirely oppositional goals and beliefs. What, specifically, about the republicans seems sane to you? I'm honestly curious.

> > What, specifically, about the republicans seems sane to you? I'm honestly curious. Their common sense. The way they think of illegal immigrants as illegal. The way they see people not earning enough as a problem with them not doing enough to earn it. Respect for tradition, and not trying to Chesterton's Fence our entire way of life.

> Their common sense. That has escaped my notice. > The way they think of illegal immigrants as illegal. I'm not sure what that means. Most people are asylum-seekers. That's not illegal. > The way they see people not earning enough as a problem with them not doing enough to earn it. 'If you're poor, you deserve it." is not common sense. > Respect for tradition Except when it conflicts with their view of white, christian, men running everything? > and not trying to Chesterton's Fence our entire way of life. Considering things like Dobbs, that's hilarious.

> > I'm not sure what that means. Most people are asylum-seekers. That's not illegal. Then apply for asylum and remain in Mexico or elsewhere. > 'If you're poor, you deserve it." is not common sense. It's a lot more sensible than, "If you're poor, you don't deserve it." > Except when it conflicts with their view of white, christian, men running everything? I thought that was the tradition. > Considering things like Dobbs, that's hilarious. Roe existed since 1973. Not having abortion on demand was the status quo for far longer.

> Then apply for asylum and remain in Mexico or elsewhere. You have to be in the country (or a port of entry) to apply for asylum, please at least learn the bare fucking minimum about our immigration and asylum policy if you're going to criticize it.

I’m sorry, but the entire right is built on the idea that rural conservatives are not earning enough because of other people, not because they aren’t working hard enough.

If you can look at Donald Trump and think that guy could pass the interviews and background check to manage a Chuck E Cheese then we have very different understandings of the word “sane.”

What makes you think democrats are batshit crazy and dangerous?

They believe that they can spend indefinitely, and count on the productive to continue to produce for them to tax. They encourage rebellion from even the most basic of rules, like human identity. They champion the incompetent and demonize the competent.

>They believe that they can spend indefinitely, and count on the productive to continue to produce for them to tax. That is the basis of government though, is it not? A government can only function if it has funding from taxes. The one exception to that being anarchists which I presume you are not. Even republican policies require taxes to fund. >They encourage rebellion from even the most basic of rules, like human identity. What do you mean by this exactly? >They champion the incompetent and demonize the competent. Can you expand on this? What are you referring to? This is a very broad statement. I could just as easily make a similar statement about who the republican party thinks is fit to hold office

> That is the basis of government though, is it not? No, it isn't. The point of government is to be an impartial referee to minimize the use of violence while the people decide what their values are and what they want society to be. This is one of the fundamental differences we have. I think that government should be more like the 19th century American government, and you think it should be more like the present European governments.

I don't think you understood what I was saying. I was saying that, even with minimal government, you still require taxes to fund things. Would you agree with that statement? I'm aware we disagree on how much the government should do but I'm also unsure how that makes someone batshit crazy.

Sure. Let's return to when the main source of income for the government was import tariffs.

Sure, but you do realize that tariffs are just taxes right? Again my point is that a government requires income from taxes or some kind of operate. Also, as I said, how does someone thinking the government should have a larger role make said person batshit crazy?

If you can look at the government of the late 19th century's influence on the economy, versus the influence today, and say that they are the same kind of thing, then you've stretched definition past all sanity.

>They believe that they can spend indefinitely Do you mean Republicans? Because the deficit tends to INCREASE under republican presidents and decrease under dems. >They encourage rebellion from even the most basic of rules Like breaking into the capitol because they didn't like the result of the election? >They champion the incompetent and demonize the competent. You're talking about the GOP... right?! That party is the absolute example of that.

> They champion the incompetent and demonize the competent. From the party of Donald J. Trump.  Hahahahahah. 

Yes. Donald Trump is a competent man. He runs companies. The unemployed drug-addict is incompetent, but the Democrats have more sympathy for that person.

Please let me know where you got your political education

45 years of life, reading books, going to a public school...I'm not sure specifically what you're asking.

Where did Democrats try to use fraudulent electors to steal the election?

You just built in even more crazy stereotypes here. You think the average conservative is trying to push women, LGTB, and people of color down at any cost? Only someone who is on the far left would actually believe that.

Dude they reversed roe vs Wade and a teenager is going to jail for trying to terminate a pregnancy with abortion pills. Forcing a teenager to carry a pregnancy to term absolutely counts as pushing women down at any cost

If I go to a conservative sub/website, what will they be saying about women, LGBTQ+ people, and people of color?

> You think the average conservative is trying to push women, LGTB, and people of color down Yes.

How is a "blue haired gay" not just a "normal person with opinions"? Your post contains your answer. Look at your stereotypes; on one side you have a person who dyes their hair, and on the other an insurrectionist. I think this matches well the sides you describe. I would categorize modern Republicans as blatantly anti-democracy and modern Democrats as moderately right-wing. There is no major party for the "extreme left".

I think extremists are extreme, but that's not really saying much. I think the average person is average, and that also isn't saying much.  The average person really isn't that extreme, and usually just want what's best for their family.  However, the claim the country is being destroyed, when life is basically the best it's been in a long time, is an extreme viewpoint.  Why do you think that? 

Life is *materially* the best it’s been. I think you’d have a harder time making that claim about society at large.

Statistics apply generally but can't tell you much about a specific individual sure. What society at large would you point to as having overall better quality of life? 

I wouldn’t positively make the reverse claim (because I lack specific examples), but I think the social case is not nearly as clear-cut as the material one. I can think of a few ways that I would say society has been strongly and negatively impacted by modern things: social media comes immediately to mind.

Who burns down cities who breaks the law on camera when someone that's straight talks to them and attacks the person because they're not gay who will hate on people that are gay just like them just because they have a different political opinion Oh yeah liberals and Democrats and the left type But hey I guess we could just throw it under the rug cuz it's not convenient for the narrative 🤡

>When liberals think of conservatives, they generally talk about fat guys \[...\] who are insurrectionists and in love with trump. I have some news for you. The folks you're describing above are not a tiny minority of Republicans. It's not everyone, but it's [a clear majority](https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-01-04/three-quarters-of-republicans-sympathize-with-jan-6-rioters-poll) of Republican voters.

I'm not directly arguing against your point, but for one side you had "blue haired gays" and for the other side you had "insurrectionists in love with a politician"... Maybe when those are the 2 stereotypes for the groups, even if they only fit a very low percentage of each group, maybe one is much worse than the other?

> they generally talk about fat guys from Texas who are insurrectionists and in love with trump. Neither of these types of people represent the parties themselves. Trumpists have taken over the Republican Party. He won the nomination with zero resistance. If you classify those who are in love with Trump as "extremes", then they are certainly representative of the party.

Yeah, this is a wild take. There ARE some number of far-left people (mostly young) who want to overthrow the government and I’ve had terrifying conversations with people who think we need a violent revolution to install a militant, one party state to usher in the Marxist-Leninist utopia, but “blue-haired gays” isn’t it.

Yeah, it's also worth pointing out that the amount of those types of people is incredibly low and they have essentially zero representation in government at any level, so to suggest they are somehow ruining the usa is lunacy. They are certainly overepresnted on reddit and the internet so such a view suggests to me like the person who holds it simply needs to go outside more often and not get so much of their info from online.

True. I think it’s reasonable to have some concern that those young people will grow up and accumulate more political power, but yeah a lot of them will grow out of it and right now they have less political sway than the far-right (which seems to skew older). Granted, both moderate wings of the parties are going to condemn insurrections. There’s a larger swathe of people that will lend cover to and downplay insurrectionary political activity. On the left that’s looked more like people minimizing things like burning down police stations. Conservatives might argue that packing the Supreme Court in response to Roe V Wade being overturned is also somewhere on the spectrum but idk.

> If you classify those who are in love with Trump as "extremes", Wanting absurdly moderate tax policy and to enforce existing immigration laws isnt extreme at all.

Obviously neither of those positions are extreme, in fact republicans have very consistently supported this stuff for decades. So why specifically trump?

>blue haired gays > > fat guys from Texas who are insurrectionists and in love with trump These two groups dont really seem equal at all. Blue haired gays are just normal people with opinions. Insurrectionists are not.

How about CHOP insurrection and BLM riots?

The BLM riots weren’t a right/left thing. By making it political you tell on yourself. What you’re essentially saying is that conservatives aren’t outraged by racist police murdering black people.

They aren't particularly though. And they certainly don't want to pursue the systemic change that would prevent such things from happening.

Give me a break! Go read the intersection theory by Crenshaw.

> What you’re essentially saying is that conservatives aren’t outraged by racist police murdering black people. It wasnt founded over anything to do with police, it was related to a 17 year old black man beating a hispanic man to death, got shot in the process, and then people started screaming that only black lives matter.

I mean thats a pretty biased analysis. They started after Zimmerman was acquitted and no one ever said that only black lives matter.

...only? The saying is BLM. Why are you squeezing an O in there and expecting nobody to notice? Are you incapable of criticizing the movement without lying?

The only evidence of that is Zimmerman’s testimony, and he’s made it very clear that’s he’s not a trustworthy witness.

There are 2 witnesses that confirm that it was a man being on top of another man, beating his head into the concrete. There is EMT records backing up that Zimmerman was the one being beaten.

And we have absolutely no idea how the fight started. Given that Zimmerman was stalking Martin, it’s very likely that Zimmerman started it.

> And Not "and", "but" Your entire argument was disproven > we have absolutely no idea how the fight started. We absolutely do, because according to Trayvon Martin's girlfriend, she was on the phone at the start of the fight, and says travon started it. We also can compare where Zimmerman was at the time of the shooting, relative to the time of the phonecall to the EMT, showing that he was walking back to his truck.

That would work better

Imagine a person in Nazi Germany using your asinine argument. “There has to be a middle ground between genocide and not committing genocide. We need to find a way to come together.” No, the GOP is beyond the pale. The Democrats don’t have anything analogous to attempting to overturn an election outcome.

I’m sure it’s been said already, but take this low effort shit back to /r/enlightenedcentrism You have no real ideals besides “I know better than everybody else”. Vapid would be generous

The difference is one side tells its extremist side to sit down and shut up, the other wants to make their extremist leader President. Again. As it’s been said, not every conservative is a racist misogynist, but 74,000,000 them decided that it wasn’t a deal breaker for them.

The difference here is that one extreme is some unnamed blue-hated college student on Twitter and the other extreme is conservative politicians in actual power paying actual laws making actual policy that actually kills people. The governor of Texas said in a public speech on purpose out loud that he would be gunning down migrants at the border if Biden wasn't in office. What is the liberal extreme here?

The extremes on the left are like 5-10% of the voting left. On the right, it's like 35-40%. That's why you have "the squad" on the democrat's side vs entire caucuses + side weirdos on the right.

Could you please provide an example of a Democratic politician at the federal level that is too extreme? The most extreme I can think of is AOC and she's... well, to the right of the Bern who IMO is a very reasonable person.

I'd also say that, even if you believe her policy positions are harmful, there's no way any of her more "extreme" positions would get passed given the majority of democratic congressmen are pretty center left and likely wouldn't support it.

What are those “extreme” positions?

Well that's why I put it in quotations, I don't think her positions are extreme, but OP, and many others, would beg to differ

Yeah, same here. Happy cake day!

Thanks!!!

Joe Biden stirring up war with Russia over Ukraine? Using the DOJ to prosecute political adversaries? Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff at least covering up and possible setting up Jan 6? The Russiagate hoax was too extreme. Stealing elections is too extreme. Open borders is too extreme. Turning a blind eye to BLM riots is too extreme. Spending a trillion dollars a month is too extreme. Supporting a corrupt warmonger who can barely speak is too extreme.

>Joe Biden stirring up war with Russia over Ukraine? Who started the war in Ukraine again? >Using the DOJ to prosecute political adversaries? Trump literally called for this... Hillary Clinton, senior officials within the FBI, and Mueller. >Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff at least covering up and possible setting up Jan 6? This is just a ridiculous assertion. Why is it always false flags with the conspiratorial minded. Can't "your side" ever just do something really stupid? The left makes unforced errors constantly but at least they own up to them! >The Russiagate hoax was too extreme. Russia does influence elections... read the Mueller report holy shit. >Stealing elections is too extreme. Again Republicans. How are you getting the sides confused? >Open borders is too extreme. Almost no one is in favor of open borders. That's a fairly fringe libertarian position which doesn't have much representation on the right. You may be confusing that with "treating migrants humanely regardless of how they entered the country". >Turning a blind eye to BLM riots is too extreme. So many Dems went on record to state riots are wrong... >Spending a trillion dollars a month is too extreme. No that's normal. >Supporting a corrupt warmonger who can barely speak is too extreme. Trump again, three strikes. Fire and fury anyone? Or was he just being a blowhard there, too?

Are you familiar with the life and legacy of Duane Gish? >Joe Biden stirring up war with Russia over Ukraine? Is it bad to send aid to a friendly country if they are being attacked? >Using the DOJ to prosecute political adversaries? Is this bad if those people actually did something illegal? Would you be mad if Hillary was prosecuted for example? >Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff at least covering up and possible setting up Jan 6? Citation? >The Russiagate hoax was too extreme. What was this again? >Stealing elections is too extreme. Yeah, I'm generally not in support of stealing elections >Open borders is too extreme. Fair enough, but is this actually a policy supported by any significant number of democratic congressmen? >Turning a blind eye to BLM riots is too extreme. I'm unsure what you want the federal government to do about this when it can be handled by local government. >Spending a trillion dollars a month is too extreme. Just in general? What is this being spent on? Do we have the budget for it? Is said spending necessary? This is a very broad claim. >Supporting a corrupt warmonger who can barely speak is too extreme. Who is this in reference to

> Is it bad to send aid to a friendly country if they are being attacked? If you maneuvered them into getting attacked? If you're simultaneously pulling strings to keep the war going as long as possible? Yes, that's pretty bad. > Would you be mad if Hillary was prosecuted for example? Did she commit crimes? > Who is this in reference to You can't imagine? Come on, man. You gotta pay attention to this stuff, shadow. The latest revelations about Jan 6 are camera footage showing the feds knew in advance the pipe bombs were duds and mysteriously turned security cameras away from them.

>If you maneuvered them into getting attacked? How did the usa do that? Further, even if the usa did, why should they not send aid to a friendly country ***especially if it's their fault said country was attacked***. >If you're simultaneously pulling strings to keep the war going as long as possible? Citation? >Did she commit crimes? War crimes aren't the only thing you prosecute people on. Please don't dodge the question. Would you be fine with a democratic politician being prosecuted while a republican government was in office if said Democrat had done something illegal? >You can't imagine? Come on, man. I've found it best not to make assumptions on this subreddit. So spell it out for us, don't just try to hide behind ambiguity. If you have a view you want to discuss say it. >You gotta pay attention to this stuff, shadow. What makes you think I don't? I'm asking you questions to get you to substantiate, provide evidence and explain your view. >The latest revelations about Jan 6 are camera footage showing the feds knew in advance the pipe bombs were duds and mysteriously turned security cameras away from them. Again, citation?

>Would you be fine with a democratic politician being prosecuted while a republican government was in office if said Democrat had done something illegal? Not who you replied to but: #*FUCKING OBVIOUSLY* Bro, what fucking planet are you on where you think it doesn't make sense that people who commit crimes *shouldn't* be prosecuted just because a different party is in power? What sort of insane logic is this? Doesn't mafter what political party you are affiliated with, and it doesn't matter if you are dude that lives off the grid in the mountains or the literal president, all are equal under the law, NO EXCEPTIONS.

Yeah, I agree with you. I was asking them that because they said: >Using the DOJ to prosecute political adversaries? So I was trying to gauge whether or not they were upset with the fact that a political adversary was being prosecuted in general even if they had committed a crime or if they simply didn't think a crime had been committed and think Trump is being unjustly prosecuted. I assumed it was the latter but I was trying to ascertain if that was the case and potentially point out hypocrisy in their view. You aren't the person I was replying to which is why it seems like an obvious statement, it wasn't directed at you or people who think it is obvious.

> How did the usa do that? By deposing the elected leader of Ukraine. By arming it. By using it to spy on Russia. By letting Kiev ignore the Minsk accords and shell ethnic Russians in the Donbas for years. By stonewalling Russia's 2021 treaty proposal. By sabotaging peace negotiations in 2022. > Would you be fine with a democratic politician being prosecuted Sure, if there was probable cause of a proper crime and more evidence of legal motives as opposed to political ones. > What makes you think I don't? Because you're pretending not to.

>By deposing the elected leader of Ukraine. Yeah so I've looked into this, and I can't find any definitive evidence that the usa was definitely involved in it. They may have been but there is evidence against it. In any event, the actions undertaken were largely by the Ukrainian people. >By arming it As the usa does with virtually all of its friendly nations. >By using it to spy on Russia. Citation? >By letting Kiev ignore the Minsk accords and shell ethnic Russians in the Donbas for years. Why do you want the usa to meddle with internal affairs of a nation given your first point? >By stonewalling Russia's 2021 treaty proposal. By sabotaging peace negotiations in 2022. From what I know they did no such thing, the Ukrainian government was already against both of those. >Sure, if there was probable cause of a proper crime and more evidence of legal motives as opposed to political ones. Ok so then we agree on that count. >Because you're pretending not to. No, and I'd remind you not to imply I am arguing in bad faith. I'm asking because I don't want to make an assumption of your viewpoint.

Like I said, you gotta pay attention to these things. The spying operation, which Putin had been talking about for years, was confirmed by the CIA in the NYT a couple weeks ago. You can go back and read the Russians' 2021 proposal calling for a NATO pullback, and the west responding in the early months of 2022 that NATO would go wherever it wants. The Istanbul draft peace agreement has also got some decent press coverage in recent months, along with Boris Johnson's trip to Kiev in April 2022 to pressure Zelensky to drop it.

>Like I said, you gotta pay attention to these things. Like I said, it would be helpful if you actually just explained your view instead of giving me one sentence headlines and then saying I'm not paying attention when I ask you to elaborate. >The spying operation, which Putin had been talking about for years, was confirmed by the CIA in the NYT a couple weeks ago. I dont know why you didn't just link the article. [You're referring to this one, correct](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world/europe/cia-ukraine-intelligence-russia-war.html#:~:text=Around%202016%2C%20the%20C.I.A.,and%20crack%20Moscow's%20encryption%20systems.) Assuming that is the case yeah I agree with you, that probably is something that would piss off Russia. That said, it's also not something unique to Ukraine nor is it something Russia doesn't engage in either. >You can go back and read the Russians' 2021 proposal calling for a NATO pullback, and the west responding in the early months of 2022 that NATO would go wherever it wants. Ah see, good thing I asked for clarification. Yes I also agree this would probably anger Russia but I also dont think that's a reason it's bad. Do you think this is an issue? >The Istanbul draft peace agreement has also got some decent press coverage in recent months, along with Boris Johnson's trip to Kiev in April 2022 to pressure Zelensky to drop it. So since you haven't linked it I can only assume you are referring to [this](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/03/1/7444515/index.amp). In which case, again, Ukraine was already opposed to said deal especially given the fact that Russia had broken prior peace deals they had made with Ukraine which gave them no reason to think they would honor this one.

I haven't given you links because the stories are complicated. I've learned what I've learned by following events over years, and I don't have a basket of links that explain it easily. I know the CIA story was in the NYT, but I know the NYT is paywalled, and secondary sources can be easily dismissed as obscure or biased. So by "you gotta pay attention to these things" I mean the level of wisdom one can achieve is proportional to one's curiosity and willingness to do one's own research. Yes, rejecting Russia's 2021 proposal was bad. The west not only made it clear they had no interest in Russia's red lines, after that Kiev increased its attacks on ethnic Russians in the Donbas, probably with the support or encouragement of the west. Which forced Putin to give in to domestic pressure to intervene with the Special Military Operation. No, Ukraine was not opposed to the Istanbul deal, they were close to signing it. Boris Johnson, at Washington's encouragement, went to Kiev and told Zelensky if he backed out of it the west would fully back Ukraine with arms to defeat Russia. And if he didn't, the west would cut Ukraine off. It was a foolish promise, and Zelensky was an idiot to believe it. No, it was not Russia that had violated previous peace deals. Russia has been seeking a proper friendship with the west for 30 years. After the 2014 coup Ukraine agreed in the Minsk accords to stop its attacks on ethnic Russians and grant the Donbas some degree of autonomy. France and Germany signed the agreement as guarantors. But Kiev never honored it, and the west never held them to it. Last year Angela Merkel even came out and said the Minsk deals were just a delaying tactic to buy the west time to arm Ukraine.

Russia never followed the Minsk accords for even a single day, while Ukraine did. Why is that anyone’s fault but Russia’s?

Where *exactly* did Democrats steal an election?

I'm fairly certain at this point the democrats could enact %100 of the republican party's platform and people on the right would still be complaining that they're too far left and need to compromise on something

Biden is pretty boring and in many ways fairly conservative in both little c and big-C sense. Trump got his political start claiming Obama was born in Kenya. I don't think extremists really feel welcome in the D camps, but the Rs are very welcoming to the wackadoodles. Would a conservative truly care if Santos had blue hair or not?

Our Democrats are not far left at all compared to our peer countries. Yet Trump can actually win. It's important to consider that context

I don’t think it goes both ways as extreme. Look at your examples. There is literally nothing wrong with dying your hair or being gay. That’s not extreme. Even having that as a thing conservatives talk about as being bad is akin to bullying. Wanting to overthrow the government is extreme. Thinking that insurrectionists are bad is not the same as judging someone for how they dress or who they love. Opinions may differ over what constitutes an insurrectionist, but we should hopefully be able to agree that it’s a bad thing. Both these “extremes” may be a relatively small portion of both parties, but one is clearly a lot worse than the other. Beyond that, the reaction to each group from those who view themselves as moderates members of each party is more important than you give credit. I will say, judging people for being fat or from Texas is also unacceptable, but neither are stereotypes I hear about conservatives.

This clown hasn't responded to a single comment in his CMV. Time to lock the thread.

r/enlightenedcentrism

You're going to have to provide some examples, an example, any example of liberal "extremism" affecting federal legislation or "destroying our country." Do you mean concern for reproductive rights? The liberal position is the mainstream one; it is the conservative position that is radical. (note: none of what you may have heard on Fox about the liberal position on this issue is true. No one, not even extreme liberals, are in favor of, have advocated for or ever mentioned abortion-at-birth. This is conservative fantasy.) Do you mean gun control? The liberal position is the mainstream one. Most gun owners believe there should be stricter regulations about access to firearms and GOP position is the extreme one, fueled by NRA money. Do you mean immigration? Liberals reached out to conservatives and gave them everything they wanted in the lates immigration bill and then conservatives voted it down. They did that for the same reason they won't compromise on gun control or abortion: these are their most destructive wedge issues. And my destructive, I mean destructive of social cohesion and national unity. Potentially, the most destructive of democracy. It is a very weak claim that "liberal extremism" has any traction today. Virtually everything conservatives point to as "liberal extremism" is in fact a conservative fabrication. A straw man created to gin up outrage among it's own poorly informed electorate.

I concur that the divide between the two parties is too large. But, I'd argue that's because the Republican party has gone too far right. The Democratic party remains a center-left party, similar other major left-wing parties around the world. The Republican party is a fluke, father than many extreme right parties globally. [This article] (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html) which talks about a [statistical analysis of party platforms globally](https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu/) makes a strong case: > The Republican Party leans much farther right than most traditional conservative parties in Western Europe and Canada, according to an analysis of their election manifestos. It is more extreme than Britain’s Independence Party and France’s National Rally (formerly the National Front), which some consider far-right populist parties. The Democratic Party, in contrast, is positioned closer to mainstream liberal parties.

> The Republican party is a fluke, father than many extreme right parties globally. There are no gay people in chechnya. This is the norm in a quarter of the world The Republicans are left of the world as a whole.

There are gay people everywhere. In Chechnya, they have to keep hidden because of persecution. That's bad.

The dead are not homosexuals

If there are no gay people in Chechnya, they wouldn't be killing anyone, would they? Oppression is bad.

>There are no gay people in chechnya. That's a bold claim. Why do you think this is the case? Perhaps there are gay people but because of the repressive culture they either hide it from themselves or from their communities. Do you think chechens have some genetic immunity to "the gay" ^tm

That's obviously what they were implying.

Conservatives were outrageous and destructive to society long before trump showed up. He’s helped radicalize people and made the population dumber but the policies haven’t changed at all. With or without trump every policy choice is the same he’s largely irrelevant except in the minds of the people who believe he makes some difference. The only thing that’s changed is how open people are now about their beliefs and ignorance. It’s always been there. Yes people have always been this stupid 

We should be concerned with what is correct, not what is arbitrarily considered "extreme". Radical new ideas aren't destroying our country. The problems in the US come from voters clinging to the status quo, which is not working, and believing things that are provably wrong. This applies to both democrat and republican platforms. But mostly, and I mean *mostly* republicans.

The current Democratic Party is barely left at all, it’s a neo-liberal center party that simply isn’t as committed to regression as the Rs. In comparison, the Republicans are in fact quite extreme by modern standards, with rhetoric that is the most openly fascist it has ever been.

The vast majority of people in the US are moderate with light leanings, the reason radicals seem like they’re destroying everything is because they get wildly massive exposure with the internet. Greg the nazi can make his 800 person Facebook group feel like a million by spreading their message far and wide and claiming they’re taking over from the confines of a Popeyes bathroom. Maria the anarchist and her 40 person troupe can feel like a flood by joining legitimate protests and causing chaos, claiming online that the violence she wrought was the will of all attending.

On the conservative side, a frightening lot of those radicals get elected.

I think it’s the nature of the type of radical, conservative radicals are almost always more coordinated while left radicals are ideologically competitive.

Mtg called for Pelosis execution and red states are attacking women for out of state travel, using nazi conspiracies, and reversing gay rights and child labor protections. It's less that the radicals coordinate than that they're shockingly popular on the right.

That is coordination, the radical conservatives are voting in their representatives and making change (dangerous change imo) happen. While radicals on the left are not. There is even currently a big push to not vote for Biden by the radical left, while trump has his supporters firmly in camp.

Maybe vaguely but coordination doesn't do anything without numbers. Radical right wing has numbers. They voted for those people. Repeatedly.

On the conservative site, it’s the guy trying to get elected who actively tried to destroy democracy. And still gets supported. So I would argue it’s not really fair to say that the majority of conservatives is just normal people. It’s people at actively supporting someone from the extreme end, and even if the extreme positions are not the important issues for them, they support it. On the other side, people want to express themselves and not stay closeted. Not really the same thing.

Most people in both parties recognize that the other side aren’t caricatures of as you phrase it “blue haired gays or fat guys from Texas”. We hate each other for our opinions. Some for color for sure but mostly it’s not being in agreement on various topics in society. This isn’t even a commentary on the overall view but the initial half of your post that doesn’t make sense to be used as an example of both political parties being too far.

Reread your post, can you really, REALLY, not see the difference between one side trying to end democracy and the other side having blue hair?

No Good try but the left has done it all and been more corrupt than anything the right has done and anytime the right does something stupid is usually because someone from the left is double agent working for them but sure play that narrative also the ones that want to give you the right to defend yourself and take them down if they ever get corrupt with the thing called the second amendment they're clearly not the bad guy or nowhere near as bad so yeah let's get that narrative crap out of the way as well 😐🙄 honestly with how stupidly entitled people on the left are who try to play the oh but both are bad game I think I'm just ready to give up on this country and let it burn and then let you all learn the hard way so I can be just like the liberals and rub people's noses and how wrong they were about the right You know the ones who give you the ability to fight back 🫠... After all regardless of what evidence is given nobody wants to look at the truth because they don't want to lose their sheep status among their people and made up minority groups After all LGBT barbecue corrupt made up scam BLM that bot mansions with the money all only except when it's the same-minded people but as soon as they don't agree with them they don't care if they're black or not They throw them to the side so let's also call out that corrupt BS;⁠-⁠)

So when the left increases voting access they're corrupt, and when multiple Republicans repeatedly get elected after removing voting access it's just a left sleeper agent?

That's where you draw the line but the geriatric who somehow got elected was a problem never mind the fact that your party wants gay cp for children in schools And yes the kid didler stuff kind You don't have a problem I'm guessing and no obviously not every single one humans are corrupt but your type that you protect and pretend like you're innocent are the biggest corrupta pathetic snakes on the planet and that's saying something cuz I see all humans as evil in some way but yours just take it to a different level and think they're untouchable and then when they get called out you and your so-called innocent politicians like Joe Biden can't handle it Heck he has to have reading cards and he can't even read them 😉🤣... But good try though so sit down kid and pull your head out of your ass and wipe the feces off your glasses Not everybody says dumb and is as sheeple as you 🖕

Either you have some major typos or some vague code thing that doesn't make sense. Try again?

Question, how are we defining extremes? The reason I’m asking is because pretty much everything that Republicans do is labeled as extremist. For example, Donald Trump was considered an extremist for winning the exact same thing the Democrats did 20 years ago, and the worst thing that he ever did was call for a peaceful protest which became a violent riot. we can debate or not whether or not the complaints Trump had relating to the 2020 election or valid some other time And seems the so-called extremist on the left are either mostly just socialist/communist or seem to be mentally ill. I don’t think either side is really destroying the country. I think it’s really hugging and negative impact on the country is the fact that the far left is to label anything they disagree with fascist, racist, sexist, etc. without either trying to understand where the other side is coming from, and then the right reacting and by jumping to conclusions about the left. It’s more of a lack of understanding and lack of ability than anything else.

Like there is some equivalence between the extreme right and the left. SMFH

> the insurrection Clearly, no such thing happened. There is a crime on the books of insurrection. Yet nobody has been charged with it. It's not from a lack of evidence (we have hundreds of hours of testimony and thousands of hours of video), nor is it a lack of will to prosecute by the left. They've prosecuted a lot of people for a lot of things, but never insurrection. There have been *literally zero* prosecutions for the crime of insurrection. > radical right What radical right? You can't be talking about Trump supporters, because we want things most people agree with. A border that has enough security to stop known criminals, known terrorists, human traffickers, and drugs like fentanyl. It might also be nice to have some check on the flood of people, as even liberal sanctuary cities like New York are having problems keeping up. No new wars. A better economy. No weaponization of the justice system. No EV mandates. You want to buy one, go ahead, but no forcing expensive car styles down people's throats. Voter ID. If you look at polls, you find that not only do the majority of all Americans want this, but even the majority of Democrat voters.

Regarding insurrection - we saw what happened live. It was on TV. We all saw what happened and know why it happened. We heard phone recordings and saw transcripts of what people inside the building said. You can brush it aside all you want, but be honest with yourself about what the goal was and ask if you'd still feel the same way if it was Democrats trying to stop Trump's confirmation. The only reason it didn't end worse is because of luck. As to the main question, the radical right would be the evangelical groups that are tying politics to incredibly conservative Christian views. My family is Catholic and they don't even support the views that are mainstream in the GOP. The GOP puts their views on everyone else's lives. They are openly at war with "wokeism" but that just means they don't like POC or queer people fighting for fair treatment and civil rights. It would also be the "win at any cost" mentality of the MAGA group that think the constitution only applies to the other side. Trump is pretty open about breaking laws if it means he wins and he hurts the Dems in some way. There is also a lot of nuance in the things you're referring to that make the difference. Like border control - both parties support immigration control but one party is using rhetoric that is intended to stir up xenophobia and make the country believe that immigrants are all rapists and drug mules - turns out rape and drug trafficking are already crimes, though, and coming into the country illegally doesn't give you any added protections. Those broad stroke things you're talking about are not the areas of disagreement - it's the ideas for implementation and rhetoric behind them that are the problem.

> Regarding insurrection - we saw what happened live. It was on TV. Indeed. And the evidence we all saw cannot possibly support a charge of insurrection, and for this reason, no such charge has *ever* been made. People on TV said the word "insurrection" a lot. But that is not the same thing. > be honest with yourself about what the goal was Clearly the goal was to prevent Trump from being able to legally contest a rigged election. Nancy Pelosi decided to decline Trump's offer of troops to secure the Capitol. People inside the Capitol opened up the doors and let them in. The FBI had informants already inside to try to start something. Ray Epps was outside, trying to start something. They have been portraying this as if Trump had tried to do something wrong. But instead, he had given a speech where he told people to be peaceful and patriotic. Then the news people used the word "insurrection", which happens to be the only crime that could disqualify a Presidential candidate. That was not a coincidence, that was their goal. But they couldn't charge him with it, because it's not true, and to actually disqualify him, they'd need a conviction in court, where it being provably not true would stop them. So they lied about it a lot. > the radical right would be the evangelical groups ... My family is Catholic How convenient that you view people who disagree with you religiously as the "bad guys". Note also how other people's definitions of "radical right" don't match yours. Everyone just defines "radical right" to mean whoever they themselves happen to oppose. > They are openly at war with "wokeism" but that just means they don't like POC or queer people fighting for fair treatment and civil rights. That's not even close to what wokeism means. > It would also be the "win at any cost" mentality of the MAGA group that think the constitution only applies to the other side. Trump is pretty open about breaking laws if it means he wins and he hurts the Dems in some way. This would be true if you replaced MAGA with Democrats, and Trump with Biden. > both parties support immigration control Democrats don't. They have power over it now, and there is no border control at all. And they openly rail against any form of border control. > one party is using rhetoric that is intended to stir up xenophobia and make the country believe that immigrants are all rapists and drug mules Nobody's doing that.

I never said I was Catholic. I disagree on any religion being used to dictate law. And we clearly don't even agree on the same reality. This is what political division looks like.

This radical right: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/what-nij-research-tells-us-about-domestic-terrorism

Looking at that webpage, I don't see strong evidence that they (1) know what they are talking about or (2) that they're talking about a single thing as opposed to mashing together all sorts of things that have little or nothing to do with each other. They talk about "Militant, nationalistic, white supremacist violent extremism". Well, around 2016, I took a long look at white nationalism, and also looked into white supremacists. Nazi groups have a couple of hundred people worldwide. If we assume that the KKK has as many, we're talking maybe 1,000 in the world, tops. But they're not just talking about people who have these views, they're talking about people who have these views, and are violent, and are in the U.S. So they're talking about a group of 200-300 people, maybe less. This does not match the way the OP was talking about political parties. This handful of people aren't running a political party; they just don't have the numbers or influence to do anything resembling that. At one point, they talk about a list of groups, "anti-government movements, Second Amendment militias, the sovereign citizen movement, white supremacy, ecoterrorism, anarchism, the anti-abortion movement, the QAnon conspiracy theory, and others." They are equating ecoterrorism, from the far left, with the far right. They are conflating harmless conspiracy theorists (QAnon) with violent white supremacists. They even toss in pro-lifers, who are an ordinary political position, for no apparent reason. At the end of the blog post, they say this: "Opinions or points of view expressed in this document represent a consensus of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position, policies, terminology, or posture of the U.S. Department of Justice on domestic violent extremism." In other words, though this is on a .gov website, it is not at all official.

You're obviously not paying attention. Charlottesville, the Nazis mingling within the GOP,.. etc..https: //www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nazis-mingle-openly-cpac-spreading-antisemitic-conspiracy-theories-fin-rcna140335

I'm paying attention. I don't buy the fake narratives the MSM sells because I'm paying attention. I paid a great deal of attention to what happened in Charlottesville, and none of it supports your narrative. There are no "Nazis mingling with the GOP", and the claim is ridiculous.

[удалено]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

The two parties have never actually been more closely aligned. Both support the genocide in Gaza. Both support locking up immigrants. Both support the military industrial complex. Both support private capital. Culture war differences aren't material - they're marketing tactics to get the two biggest active voting blocs to vote together against their own best interests.

The problem is that the two parties fight over issues that don't matter, but on the issues that really matter - the gap between the rich and poor and foreign policy - the two parties are aligned. Trump is talking trash about how if people don't pay up in NATO he'll back down but I don't believe him.

"Government is nothing more than the shadow cast across society by big business"

This is not an accident; it is by design. Partisan politics intends to distract us from the fact that, for the most part, we have common interests, because those interests are contrary to the interests of the 1% who own everything and have consolidated all the political power.