It’s centrist nonsense, if someone says a waterfall flows downstream and someone else says the waterfall flows upstream, that doesn’t mean the waterfall is stagnant, or that the person who said it flows upstream has a good point.
The left and right aren’t arbitrary collections of disorganized and incoherent positions you can combine ad-hoc.
Looks like overanalysis to me. Not sure the massive metaphor was necessary to attack ‘them centrists’.
That being said - the notion that centrism is a compromise is only something I’ve seen from people who are not partaking in said centrism. Not that I give a shit or anything.
Your comment makes it seem like there can only be two sides, that’s the entire issue with the US democracy from an outsider, where’s the other parties? Why only two, and why are you defending that there should be only two on divided lines?
And neither are they, so what’s your point? They’re just saying that both sides have good points, and they’re the “party” that will get what the nation wants done. Is trying to do what the nation wants as whole centrist to you? Or are trying to smear someone who doesn’t align fully with you? That’s the issue that they are also trying to bring to light, you are saying there is sides, there shouldn’t be… since to be centrist requires sides… or parties… you’ve no contradicted yourself in your explanation.
What’s centrist about that? I think you’re just reading way too far into this or trying to make it into something it’s not. Both sides have points, both are wrong, and you’re trying to decry someone saying this. That’s frankly wrong dude.
There shouldn’t be sides, and that makes centralism impossible, it’s only possible with the two party system.
