neither left nor right rule

Well america does not have a real left tbh ! Many people think of socialism as left wing while it is the economic center , someone supporting social left policies like lgbt rights can be considered liberal , but they can still be against universal healthcare or other socialist polices and then votes dem , coz they are liberal!

Depends on the centrist I want a smaller government more than anything which 9 out of 10 times forces me to go republican or libertarian. I like democrat ideas at times but hate their execution. Democrats fumble the ball every time they get it once the Pelosi’s and Bidens are out of the party I might give them another shot.

I use dating sites mainly for hookups and unless someone is explicity left I dont talk to them about their , centrist beliefs coz most of the times they left me offended !

True. By all international standards, the U.S. Dems are a conservative party while the GOP is a fascism party. The Overton window in the U.S. is very far to the right. Conservatism has gone unchecked for so long it is running rampant. It needs to be extinguished. It's a health and safety issue at this point.

How would one scale back government and focus on climate change and expanding immigration? And state's rights to do what exactly?

States' rights to do what?

I can talk person to person with reasonable people. I do not find people reasonable that hate others for their skin color, their faith, or their identity, instead of hating them for their actions. I do not find people reasonable that want to exterminate those. I also do not find people reasonable that do not care about those being hated and death being wished upon them just because they are fiscally conservative .

My problem with "centrists" is that they're using the word to avoid consequences for the hatred they spew online. Those "centrists" claim to be centrists but the only issues they ever talk about are right-wing issues, 99% of the time the culture war that they wage. Just say you're republican and make it easy for me, I don't care if we agree or disagree on other issues at the current time, if you think that exterminating different people is okay you cannot convince me of anything anymore.

You can't talk to them person to person. That type of persuasion works in matters when the other person is operating in the cerebral realm of logic. The problem in politics is that we're operating in the realm of identity, and you cannot reason somebody out of a matter of personal identity, because the brain treats threats to personal identity the same way as physical threats. Especially when it is a closed belief system that defines politics as tribal combat, veracity as irrelevant, any information that comes from outside the tribe as per se objectionable, and agreement as a failure of will.

Basically, the psychological research funds that you have to take them out of the Q/MAGA bubble, and surround them with people with diverse views. It can't be done in online forums. I've tried. If you listen, you just get regurgitated talking points, and if you ask questions that start to make them think they abruptly disengage.

Do they understand that the greater evil must be vanquished first?

Left economically but right socially? Like, they'd want single payer healthcare but only for straight white people?

I think it’s more common that people claim to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Can't tell when the last time was that the right actually cared about economy instead of wanting to put all non-white, non-straight, non-christian people into camps

The issue is that right now one entire party has become an issue that needs to be solved.

Hunter doesn't have a position in our Government, so who cares what he does?

One of many reasons for this could be your choice of topics, the location of the argument, and your perception. Any Centrists in the argument may be on your side of that particular issue and therefore are appearing left-leaning to you at the moment.

You not looking for them does not mean that they are not there. Them not coming out and identifying themselves continually does not mean they are not there.

Just like anything in science, your perception is not reality, especially when it seems that you are looking to enforce an opinion, not find the truth.

Most of the Centrists I've spoken to also tend to argue the issue, and not the side. They see sides and at-all-costs group membership as a form of lunacy.

Oh I gotcha. Right-leaning centrist here: fuck guns, don't ban abortion.

It's not that hard /shrug

I'm centrist but lean a little more left. I can say that I'm not a fair weathered centrist. I'll call out the bullshit, no matter who's in power. But as of late it seems the conservatives are pissing me off the most.

That's typically how it's actually used, but then that makes any reference to being a centrist pointless when discussing issues.

This interpretation means there is no "centrist position", so if an issue is divided by Democrat vs Rebuplican (which it usually is) then you're picking a side for that discussion.

That means that in issue specific conversations or debate, bringing up the fact your centrist only serves to fracture yourself from the party your currently on the side of. (None of this applies for registering to vote, where being an Independent actually matters).

I just think the label at best fractures your impact and reach and at worst is an attempt to sound rationally superior.

All this to say, not identifying with a party or choosing opinions are all well and fine, but categorising yourself as a centrist just groups you with a bunch of people that don't necessarily represent or agree with you.

I feel like my objections to anti-abortion laws are playing out just as I feared. I'm against abortion but I feel like easier access and less stigma around birth control is a big part of preventing abortions. My main objection was I knew right wingers would make no distinctions between any kind of abortions, even to save lives of women. And son of a gun, unfortunately I was right.

I lean to the left on nearly every issue except when it comes to firearms.

For some reason I am called a nazi, bootlicking, qanon, magat, baby killer all because I believe we can have appropriate gun control measures while not outright banning every single firearm from those who do follow the laws, take more than necessary precautions to keep them safe and secure, while regularly training.

So what if someone doesn’t want to kill minorities but wants to buy guns and wants limited government involvement in the economy?

This is a bad strawman argument.

"There are three types of people: reasonable people who agree with me, crazy self-identified fascists, and lily-livered wimps who can't pick a side!"

If someone says that they are "centrist" they are not telling you that they base all of their opinions on being in the middle of any two positions. That would be stupid and is an insane argument to put forth on your part.

They are telling you that they agree with neither major party on everything, and find that both parties have views that they don't agree with. It's pretty easy to come to that conclusion because the US two-party system packs in an almost incoherent mishmash of beliefs into exactly two sides.

There is absolutely no contradiction in being for police reform, and against riots lasting for days. There is no contradiction in being for gun rights, while also wanting limits on them. There is no contradiction in wanting functional government services and universal healthcare, and thinking that free markets are effective. There is no contradiction in wanting a more balanced budget, and government services to be funded.

The idea that there are only two (or maybe 2.5 depending on where you live) sides in politics is a strange delusion created by your two party system.

Eh…

So while I do agree the extremism is much more dangerous on the right than it is the left… 99% of people don’t fall into these extreme groups anyway.

Maybe that’s just my world view but that’s how it is with people I know/have met in real life.

Both sides argue as if the entire other side is all extremists but the reality is most people fall somewhere in the middle, especially people younger than 50

I take your point, but that doesn't mean that I find the left to be much more appealing than the right, at least in terms of its ability to make worthwhile systemic change. The end result is the same. The American "right" and "left" are obsessed with their own flavor of identity politics, and that is what defines them over their approaches to government and economics. America's "left" is still seemingly anti-socialist.

I don't think that people should go out of their way to offend others, and the left's propensity for tolerance is somewhat better than that of the right's, but the postmodern social construct that is "identity," at least in American culture, inspires tribalism and disunity. The right, being so opposed to postmodernism, itself, has unwittingly adopted the construct of identity, regardless.

And I don't wish to invalidate others' experiences as members of identity tribes, especially those who have been (or still are) wrongfully subjugated by coercive powers in our society that may even force an identity construct upon them, but generally, feuding between opposing identity tribes seems to me to be a distraction from making a systemic shift toward a better society. Identities don't care about social welfare, though they may claim to; they care about ensuring they remain or grow stronger as modes of personal validation or actualization. They struggle against each other, as if they are, themselves, organisms fighting for survival.

People aren't defined by the subscription list of their identities (including "left" and "right"). We are not the final distillation of social performance. We just are—a cross section of experience, carried from one moment to the next.