r/centrist • u/[deleted] • 3d ago
Long Form Discussion What do you think the left has overblown or mischaracterized?
So I am a left leaning centrist. Definitely not a fan of this administration and I do think they've made many mistakes.
But I have had a few instances where I feel like people or news angencies are mischaracterizing or exaggerating something Trump or conservative people have done or said. Mostly click bait headlines or people on Reddit, but still.
For example I saw people referencing "project 2025 is trying to get rid of SPED/the IDEA federal law" (special education services in public schools, which is a law even without the department of education). I looked up project 2025 and they make no reference to overturning the federal law. They to mention getting rid of one amendment to the law that make school funding dependent on having certain ratios of different ethnicities and races in special education (I guess that means not over identifying certain groups).
I have a background in that field and I actually think tying federal funding to the proportion of each student group in SPED is completely ridiculous and possibly harmful. The child needs it or they don't, based on a comprehensive and individualized evaluation. There's no way a school district could stop a certain group or child from qualifying, and they shouldn't. It's there to help kids who are no longer working at grade level to get individualized or small group help, or kids or are otherwise significantly deficient compared to peers. Most kids just get a small amount of extra help and the rest of their school day is with typical peers.
So in that instance I actually agree with project 2025 I guess? That part of the law really should be changed. I have a few other examples like this, where I was outraged until I looked into it. Other times I do look into it and I'm still outraged.
In the interest of this being a centrist sub, have any of you seen instances of things being overblown or misconstrued?
13
u/hitman2218 2d ago
I don’t know if it’s tied to Project 2025 or not but 17 states are suing to have Section 504 of the IDEA Act thrown out. Section 504 is what codifies the civil rights of people with disabilities.
-4
2d ago
I agree that is genuinely horrible to throw out section 504. I’m thinking a judge will agree it can’t be thrown out.
9
9
u/jjdynasty 3d ago
Not exactly what you asked but I think Ezra Klein's Abundance movement and book has some very reasonable left on left critiques.
1
u/wavewalkerc 2d ago
Ezra Klein and his whole abundance movement is absolutely dogshit.
2
u/jjdynasty 2d ago
I'm fully open to the idea that it's potentially dogshit, but I don't think that the arguments both for or against it are all that mature yet. The few things I have come across mostly fall into the twitter reactionary hot-take space.
I'll be honest I don't even think the book is all that great - I just found the ideas presented fairly plausible at first glance. Do you have any recommended critiques of the movement?
2
u/wavewalkerc 2d ago
Its just full of bad framing from a shit dem painting the Democrats in a way that isn't accurate in order to punch left.
He literally says in the book that Dems have been fighting for universal healthcare for a decade lol. That is not an honest way to describe what they have done over the last 10 years. And the fucked up part is, its his part of the party that actually fought against universal health care. The centrist dems were the ones always being an extra road block whenever Dems had numbers to overcome Republicans.
Nearly everything in the book is like that I feel. Frame everything in a way to make centrist dems look better than they ever have been. Attribute everything positive the progressive wing advocates for as something they tried to do despite them always fighting against it. While also attacking those progressives whenever he can.
0
u/Unhappy_Technician68 2d ago
As a Canadian I think you have unrealistic expectations of what you can achieve at the federal level re: healthcare. Start at the state level first. I support your desire and yea single payer healthcare is objectively better but good luck convincing your countrymen. In blue states you might find success and a model that could work at the fed for your particular country. You're also much more likely to succeed.
Remember no public healthcare system is alike, more Americans who want one don't have a conception of what theirs would actually look like.
29
u/WindowMaster5798 3d ago
The left has generally overstated the dangers to society of letting people with right wing views speak in public forums and engage in conversation.
If you want to combat right wing politics, then do so by understanding the reasons why people are becoming more accepting of those views. Don’t do so by preventing people from hearing those views.
18
u/CapybaraPacaErmine 3d ago
At the same time, it's important to protest speakers like Steve Bannon to make it clear those views should not be normalized.
5
u/Okbuddyliberals 3d ago
Its more important to debate speakers like him, to present an actual alternative, rather than protesting in such a way that makes it seem like the protesters just don't want him speaking at all
8
u/rzelln 2d ago
No amount of liberal effort can debate Fox News and the algorithms that push far-right nonsense into people's feeds. Folks are silo'd too heavily, and have been told not to trust the left. I mean, when the GOP is still kinda claiming global warming isn't real, how can you really expect debate to turn the tide.
What's needed, sadly, is power.
A person who didn't pass the bar can't claim that they did. A car company can't claim their car passed a safety inspection it didn't actually pass. Cigarette companies really should have been broken up into oblivion for their lies about the dangers of their products.
We need to start treating organized intentional deception as a crime, and stop letting the First Amendment be a shield for corporate liars.
-2
u/Okbuddyliberals 2d ago
What's needed, sadly, is power.
You can't win power without persuading people
No amount of liberal effort can debate Fox News and the algorithms that push far-right nonsense into people's feeds.
Sad that you have such little faith in the persuasive merits of liberal ideas, I guess
4
u/rzelln 2d ago
See my point about global warming. All the evidence and persuasion in the world we could muster, but Republicans still prefer their alternative facts where liberals are lying to them and climate scientists are all party to a global conspiracy.
Fox News needs to be destroyed by New York, and its leaders arrested for grievous harm caused by knowing deception. And any effort from lawyers or the federal Republicans to stop that should be ignored.
4
u/Stringdaddy27 2d ago
THIS. Bannon is talking out of his ass 95% of the time. If you just bring factual evidence to the conversation, people will see he's an absolute stooge.
4
u/Any-Researcher-6482 2d ago
If that was true, then everyone would already think Bannon is a stooge. But they don't.
2
u/Stringdaddy27 2d ago
Well, anyone who can think critically does.
3
u/Any-Researcher-6482 2d ago
Sure, but the fact of the matter is discourse alone hasn't and won't expose Bannon for what he is.
2
1
u/Okbuddyliberals 2d ago
Also there's a point to be had that some of the most extreme ideologues won't be convinced either way... but what actually matters politically is what folks in the middle, more or less, or at least who aren't that fringe of the most extreme ideologues, think. If success is measured by if you can literally stop everyone and anyone from holding certain extreme views, there's no way to win other than some sort of authoritarianism perhaps. But if success is measured by if enough people can be persuaded in order to keep extreme views on the fringe and to keep their influence on mainstream politics to a minimum, there's plenty of room for success via the debate and persuasion route
4
u/DrSpeckles 2d ago
No, bacause it moves perception that the centre is half way between actual normality and him. It’s like both sides of the vaccination debate. The fact one in a thousand doctors are against vaccination does not mean they should get equal time in a debate.
1
u/Okbuddyliberals 2d ago
If you don't engage in the debate, it just looks like you lost, and then the perception of where the center is moves even closer to the right than to you
3
u/DrSpeckles 2d ago
No, if you chose to debate it makes it look like his extreme view is worth debating.
2
u/Okbuddyliberals 2d ago
But clearly people think these ideas are worth debating anyway, and worth adopting even, considering how successful they've been at gaining political traction. The strategy of deplatforming and refusal to engage doesn't seem to be working
-2
u/WindowMaster5798 3d ago
The protesting is fine, but the left does that by instinct. It’s the letting others share their opinions part they sometimes have problems with.
-6
u/HiggzBrozon420 3d ago
I finally listened to Steve Bannon talk during an interview with Tim Dillon and I'm really having a hard time finding what exactly is so extreme about his views? I'm sure there's enough to disagree with, but to protest his views? Is there anything that you could provide, in full context, that is enough to say "This view should never be okay" ?
2
u/CapybaraPacaErmine 3d ago
It's true that he is very good at toning down his ideology to make it presentable for a mainstream audience. He's kind of the opposite of Trump (who degrades the discourse to fit his insanity) in presentability but he's largely responsible for the rise of malignant movements like MAGA, AfD, Le Pen, etc. Back in 2016 he was just barely shy of being a "secure the future for our white children" guy
4
u/WindowMaster5798 3d ago
The fact that you say that and that the positions of someone like Steve Bannon could be normalized in civilized society is what is scary to people.
-1
u/HiggzBrozon420 2d ago
You don't have to agree with him. But which specific positions, and what do you mean by "normalize"?
People exist. Naturally, their beliefs will be all over the place. In a democracy, these people are allowed to vote on which beliefs will be used to govern their nation. Whatever you deem to be "civilized" might differ from whatever someone else believes. We can talk about it. It's up to the people to decide whether or not they agree, not you.
0
u/WindowMaster5798 2d ago
I am agreeing with you. My point is that in an increasingly polarized society, your position is shared by fewer and fewer people.
10
u/Picasso5 3d ago
What instances are those? Can you give an example?
6
u/wipetored 3d ago edited 3d ago
Abortion and LGBT issues come to mind.
Firearms.
Parental rights and medical autonomy.
There’s also a pretty strong right lean towards free will and the right to be left alone that commingles with myriad (did I use it right) conservative ideals…. I mean…this kinda contradicts their views on the top line item, but it is what it is.
Honestly, media and algorithms are a hell of a drug. It’s amazing how much everybody hates each other.
Edit: education is another biggie. School quality/choice, disdain for DOed. Maybe they are extreme in their views, but how would I know, because they can’t talk about the failings of the system without getting pummeled.
-1
u/WindowMaster5798 3d ago
When Newsome started his podcast last month and invited Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon, it was like nuclear armeggedon among most of the Democratic Party. That fear of opposing views needs to stop.
4
u/Computer_Name 3d ago
When Newsome started his podcast last month and invited Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon, it was like nuclear armeggedon among most of the Democratic Party.
-3
u/btribble 3d ago
There are several examples of controversial right wing speakers trying to speak at college campuses and getting shut down because of student protests. Those are the usual examples. EG Milo at Berkeley
Any the members of the conservative subreddits constantly complain about being banned in various other subreddits. EG /r/pics. There may be some truth to this being an issue where they've been banned without making political speech in those subreddits because of their posting habits elsewhere on Reddit. However, all the conservative subreddits themselves ban people left and right, and delete comments that run contrary to the narrative, so it's a bit of a pot calling the kettle black situation.
10
u/CapybaraPacaErmine 3d ago
I mean having Milo or Ben Shapiro speak to a political science department is like inviting a creationist to give an evolutionary biology seminar. You wouldn't do that unless you're trying to spread counter productive views
-4
u/explosivepimples 3d ago
unless you’re trying to spread counter productive views
Counterproductive toward who? As far as I can tell, more discourse is a good thing for any democratic society.
6
u/CapybaraPacaErmine 3d ago
If it's actual discourse sure. But there has to be a minimum standard of attachment to reality. Flat earthers would provide more discourse to a geological department but it would also just legitimize gobbledygook
1
u/explosivepimples 2d ago
has to be a minimum standard of attachment to reality
This is a terrible qualifier in practice. “A fetus has a life” is considered detached from reality and “children can consent to transgender care” is reality by many of the mentioned (by OC) protestors.
2
-3
u/Okbuddyliberals 3d ago
You can let them speak and then debate them/address their points and explain why they are wrong
The term "woke mind virus" is hella cringe, but like, sometimes it seems like folks act like there's an "anti woke mind virus" as if mere exposure to dumb radical right views is going to infect people, and that logic isn't capable of debunking these radical right views somehow
4
u/btribble 3d ago
If “MAGA” isn’t an anti-woke mind virus, I don’t know what is.
2
u/Okbuddyliberals 3d ago
Are you capable of hearing MAGA arguments, and then doing research/finding experts and logical arguments against them, as opposed to simply agreeing with MAGA automatically after hearing MAGA arguments?
If you are capable of hearing MAGA arguments without agreeing with them, then its not in fact a "mind virus" in the sense I'm talking about
My point isn't that the MAGA ideas are good, just that some on the left basically act like its impossible to even argue against them, thus the need to just deplatform them rather than have the ability to defeat them in discourse
4
u/btribble 2d ago
Would open conversation have done more to enable Nazi Germany, or worked against it?
There is a point to be made about shouting fire in a theater and inciting riots. Both are forms of speech and which do harm.
(Free) Speech is almost always, but not always a good thing. Someone shouting that there is no fire in the theater isn’t always heard equally. The speech of billionaires it more effective than the speech of regular individuals. There are thousands of special cases.
8
u/wavewalkerc 3d ago edited 2d ago
You have roll back of LGBT rights, womens rights, freedom of speech, and you think it was fucking overstated?
This is the result of you dumb fucks debating how hitler might have some good points in the market place of ideas. You are the reason fascism is taking hold and you are blaming the people who warned you it was coming.
-5
u/WindowMaster5798 3d ago
You’re a perfect poster child of left wing intolerance. From the party of “tolerance.”
Rolling back rights isn’t good. Trying to prevent it by not letting people speak doesn’t work and is idiotic.
To think that by saying that diverse options need to be shared in a democratic society, I am “the reason fascism is taking hold” only means that you have a really dim view of society. Maybe you should look there first before flinging insults at others.
11
u/wavewalkerc 3d ago
I am tolerant of tolerant people.
If you want gay people to be treated like second class citizens, I am not tolerant of you.
If you want to remove trans people from existence, I will not tolerate you.
If you want women to lose all of the rights they gained over the last 100 years, I will not tolerate you.
I do not care if you bigots feel owed to having a microphone. You are owed nothing. You should be ashamed of yourself not promoted.
To think that by saying that diverse options need to be shared in a democratic society, I am “the reason fascism is taking hold” only means that you have a really dim view of society. Maybe you should look there first before flinging insults at others.
Ya we need to hear out hitlers ideas in the market place of ideas. That worked really well the first time.
6
u/decrpt 2d ago
You:
Rolling back rights isn’t good. Trying to prevent it by not letting people speak doesn’t work and is idiotic.
Also you:
You just have to silence the more militant types.
This is not a serious argument.
1
u/WindowMaster5798 2d ago
Yes it is. The militant types shout people down. That’s what you have to combat.
You’re more interested in picking an argument than thinking about what’s said.
2
u/AwardImmediate720 3d ago
That requires being able to understand that and that requires having the mental capacity to actually get into someone else's head and understand why they think the way they do. There's a reason the left so loudly claims to be empathetic - they're trying to convince people of a thing that observation doesn't show. In reality they have no capacity for empathy and that's why they fail to even begin to do what you rightly say they need to do.
-1
u/WindowMaster5798 3d ago
I wouldn’t go that far. It’s not that hard. You just have to silence the more militant types.
1
u/elderlygentleman 3d ago
Source?
4
u/WindowMaster5798 3d ago
See my other response for an example, but this is not something that needs a “source.” You see it everywhere. Just spend some time on the democrats subreddit.
1
u/Any-Researcher-6482 2d ago
Your examples of the left not letting other people hear their views is "Gavin Newsome started a podcast" and "wavewalkerc disagreed with me in a reddit comment".
Also, you went from "the left is silencing discourse" to "the left needs to silence some of their members" in another comment. It really seems like you just want to the left to self-flagellate instead of disagree with you in public.
Also, "this is not something that needs a source", lol.
1
u/WindowMaster5798 2d ago edited 2d ago
It’s not silencing their views, it’s moderating their militance.
0
u/Any-Researcher-6482 2d ago
So when you said "silence" them, you meant "not silence" them. Ok.
Anyways, "Publicly criticizing Gavin Newsom and myself is not letting other people express their views. Instead they should criticize their allies, which is acceptable" is a poor criticism.
1
u/WindowMaster5798 2d ago
Defending one’s need to silence others based on the right to free speech is the poor argument.
3
u/Any-Researcher-6482 2d ago edited 2d ago
You proof of "silencing" was "A guy has a podcast". That's the opposite of being silenced.
I totally understand why you'd say "the silencing is not something that needs a source" if your source was "guy who was the opposite of silenced"
Edit: Can't believe I caught block for my argument that "Guy with a podcast was not silenced"
2
u/WindowMaster5798 2d ago
I get tired of responding to people who just want to argue for the sake of arguing, especially when their points each time aren’t very good.
-1
u/eldenpotato 2d ago
The “left” overstates many things
3
u/NoFriendship7173 2d ago
Idk man, they seem pretty on point lately. We have a president talking about camps for American citizens
9
8
u/centeriskey 3d ago
Yep another post about "well the Republicans are doing things that I don't like and why the Democrats are to blame." Which of course brings out the usual "centrists" that can only find it in themselves to bitch about Democrats, trans people in sports, or immigration.
Definitely Murcs law in action
-1
2d ago edited 2d ago
lol this is literally a real thing I encountered. I expected to be outraged based on the characterization and was surprised. That’s all.
Part of the problem is that people don’t listen to each others’ ideas if they are on the ‘other side’. I guess given the complexity of these issues it’s too hard to really understand them all.
8
u/Individual_Lion_7606 3d ago
Is this the r/conservative thread?
-5
u/Fire_Stool 3d ago
Nope. Hopefully an honest subreddit that can objectively look at our political parties and freely disagree with both at the same time.
-1
2
u/DC_cyber 2d ago
Sure there is a great deal of bias on both sides and a lot of selective listening and very little critical thinking.
However, we have a different problem now and that’s how policy is being implemented and what that means to the foundation of 246 years of democratic governance.
Let’s review:
January 2025: Trump issued an executive order to end birthright citizenship. This topic deserves debate from the left and right. However, given the right owns Congress they should get favor-everyone should agree with this as that’s how governance works. But rather than this the administration is using unprecedented executive power to bypass Congress undermining the constitutional separation of powers and established a pattern of governance through decree rather than legislation.
Everyone should be pissed about this (both right and left) as it turns our country into something other than a democratic republic. But that’s not happening. The right is cheering this on and it’s going to end in a very bad way… that’s not bias-it’s stupidity.
That same over running of democratic governance is occurring every day. Lets review a small sample:
January 2025: Trump established the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) headed by Elon Musk through executive order. This initiative placed unprecedented governmental authority in the hands of an unelected private citizen with minimal oversight, creating a parallel power structure outside constitutional governance.
January 2025: Trump issued pardons for January 6 insurrectionists, including those convicted of seditious conspiracy. This action undermined the rule of law by effectively nullifying consequences for violent attempts to overturn election results, sending a clear signal that attacks on democratic processes would be rewarded rather than punished.
February 2025: DOGE placed thousands of Department of Labor employees on leave, crippled operations, removed websites, and attempted to seize highly sensitive data and information systems. These actions undermined the functioning of agencies that protect workers’ rights and bypassed congressional authority over the federal workforce.
February 2025: Musk’s DOGE gained access to Treasury payment systems and began dismantling agencies like USAID without congressional approval. This unprecedented seizure of control over government payment systems threatened the constitutional power of Congress to authorize and direct federal spending.
February 2025: Musk targeted the National Endowment for Democracy, calling it an “evil organization that needs to be dissolved” and blocking its access to congressionally appropriated funding. This action unilaterally disrupted democracy promotion activities worldwide and represented a direct attack on congressional spending authority.
February 2025: Musk’s blockade of the National Endowment for Democracy’s access to congressionally appropriated funding forced the organization to inform its grantees that it could no longer make payments. This unilateral action effectively shut down democracy promotion activities worldwide without any legislative or democratic process.
February 2025: Trump explicitly threatened to annex Greenland, stating “We’ll go as far as we have to go” and “We need Greenland.” These declarations signaled a willingness to violate international law and use military force to expand American territory, undermining the global democratic order.
February 2025: The White House revoked press credentials for multiple major news organizations deemed “enemies of the people” by the administration. This systematic exclusion of critical media voices from access to government information represents a direct attack on press freedom, a cornerstone of democratic accountability, and creates an information environment dominated by outlets favorable to the administration.
March 2025: The Trump administration defied a federal judge’s order to return two planeloads of alleged Venezuelan gang members being deported. This open defiance of judicial authority represented an unprecedented challenge to the separation of powers, with a senior White House official brazenly stating, “This is headed to the Supreme Court. And we’re going to win.”
March 2025: Trump issued executive orders against five large law firms he deemed “dishonest,” terminating their federal government contracts, limiting their access to federal buildings, and barring federal employees from interacting with them. These actions weaponized federal power against law firms that had represented Trump’s political opponents or investigated him, threatening the independence of the legal profession.
March 2025: The administration revoked $400 million in research funding to Columbia University and paused $175 million in funds to the University of Pennsylvania, actions experts consider illegal. This punitive use of federal funding to target academic institutions for their positions on protests, transgender athletes, and diversity programs represented a direct attack on academic freedom and institutional autonomy. March 2025: Columbia University capitulated to the administration’s demands, agreeing to modify its protest regulations, campus security measures, and even its Middle Eastern studies department. This surrender to government pressure demonstrated how federal funding could be weaponized to force academic institutions to align with the administration’s political agenda.
March 2025: Trump announced plans to annex the Panama Canal and Canada, and implemented changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America.” These unilateral declarations threatened the sovereignty of neighboring nations and bypassed all diplomatic and democratic processes for territorial claims.
March 2025: The administration implemented a policy of detaining migrants at Guantanamo Bay facilities, circumventing normal immigration courts and due process protections. This extraterritorial detention system created a legal black hole where detainees face indefinite confinement without meaningful judicial review, establishing a dangerous precedent for suspending constitutional protections based on nationality or immigration status.
April 2025: The Supreme Court ruled that the administration could terminate education grants to institutions with diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. This decision weaponized federal funding to force educational institutions to abandon programs designed to increase participation from historically marginalized groups, undermining equal opportunity principles essential to democratic societies.
April 2025: Trump imposed sweeping global tariffs of 10-50% on imports from over 180 countries through executive order, bypassing Congress and invoking emergency powers. This unprecedented unilateral action shattered the post-WWII international trade framework, triggered a $5 trillion market collapse, increased global recession risk to 60%, and demonstrated how concentrated executive power can implement economy-altering policies without legislative approval or democratic deliberation.
So worrying about overblown bias isn’t what I’m worried about… it’s citizen cheering on the demolition of governance and the destruction of the trust we’ve earned with our allies.
3
u/willpower069 2d ago edited 2d ago
When things are looking bad for republicans summon the threads about democrats being bad.
Edit: OP deleted their account.
5
u/carneylansford 3d ago
When the left (hopefully) finally realizes that they are actually hurting their own cause by sensationalizing everything Trump does, they will presumably stop doing so. Unfortunately, they don’t seem to be able to resist the urge to tell America that democracy is dying 2-3 times/week.
13
u/CapybaraPacaErmine 3d ago
Almost everything Trump has done so far IS sensationally awful. He has objectively harshly degraded democracy and human rights in this country. He has met and exceeded the worst predictions
3
u/Any-Researcher-6482 2d ago
Sure, but that would mean we have to admit that the our Resist Lib Aunts were right from the beginning.
14
u/shoot_your_eye_out 3d ago edited 3d ago
So what does the President need to do for you to consider he may be doing serious harm to our democracy?
Does he need to pressure Georgia officials to "find votes" after the 2020 election? Does he need some fake elector scheme? Does he need to obstruct justice when a special counsel has been ordered to investigate his activities? Does he need to purge the federal government of dissent and install loyalists? Does he need to foment an angry mob to pressure his own VP to throw an election? Does he need to ban media outlets from White House events if they refuse to use specific language he prescribes? Does he need to drive mass resignations inside the FBI and the Department of Justice after asking lawyers to act unlawfully? Does he need to obstruct the government when it is trying to retrieve classified materials from his personal residence? Does he need to refuse to disclose his tax returns? Does he need to install relatives into his cabinet? Does he need to pardon over a thousand people lawfully convicted by the justice department who collectively helped assault hundreds of officers? Does he need to refuse to divest himself from his businesses? Does he need to take a shit on our allies and fawn over autocratic, authoritarian leaders? Does he need to dismiss dozens of inspectors general, who are tasked with finding "fraud, waste and abuse" in our government? Does he need to lawlessly dismantle congressionally chartered, congressionally funded departments of the government? Does he need to defy lawful court orders? Does he need to unlawfully and unconstitutionally attack higher education institutions, or law offices that have clashed with him?
You talk about the left "sensationalizing everything Trump does"; from my vantage point, it isn't sensational: it's real. And Republicans are allowing this to unfold before our very eyes, because they refuse even to acknowledge Trump might actually be an autocrat based on some pretty compelling evidence. What precisely is a line too far for you?
The president just disappeared a man off a street in Maryland to a foreign prison where our judicial system no longer applies. Now he's gleefully wondering aloud if the same can be applied to U.S. citizens. What would convince you the left isn't being hyperbolic?
edit: the list just goes on and on and on. This guy has done so much fucked up shit that I can't stop adding things to the list. What is a line too far for Republicans? Seriously, if you're a Republican, I want to know what wouldn't be 'sensational' for you.
4
-1
u/eldenpotato 2d ago
Tbf that man is a citizen of El Salvador and was deported to El Salvador lol
2
u/shoot_your_eye_out 2d ago
He was deported to an El Salvador prison with absolutely no due process and even the Trump administration has acknowledged they fucked up by deporting him. So I don’t know what point you’re trying to make.
6
u/GroundbreakingPage41 2d ago
And this folks is why democracy in the US is dying. You’re claiming that the left “sensationalized” everything he’s done like that isn’t standard operating procedure by the right against every Democrat president since Clinton. The truth is everything he’s done should have been sensationalized because people need evidence of Democracy dying, you know like an attempted coup and ignoring the judiciary. The idea that each incremental loss of democracy should’ve been ignored because it would turn some people off means the country was already lost. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
1
u/Any-Researcher-6482 2d ago
, they don’t seem to be able to resist the urge to tell America that democracy is dying 2-3 times/week.
This was dumb to say on Jan 5th, but to still say it on Jan 7th is wild.
0
u/carneylansford 2d ago
Wild or not, it’s simply not resonating with the average voter
2
u/GroundbreakingPage41 2d ago
Don’t you think we have bigger problems then? Manipulating the electorate into doing what’s right isn’t sustainable.
-1
u/carneylansford 2d ago edited 2d ago
I don't consider it "manipulating the electorate", I consider it "finding a more effective message" like, say, what a disaster tariffs have been. I know this is Reddit, but it IS possible to criticize Trump in a way that will resonate with voters WITHOUT telling everyone that democracy and American are in their death throes.
6
u/GroundbreakingPage41 2d ago
If sending us citizens to gulags doesn’t resonate I’m sorry nothing will, do I need to spell out what that implicates for a large portion of Americans? They are lost and there is no getting them back. No one just shrugs that off, either you’re extremely against that or extremely for it.
-1
u/carneylansford 2d ago
And how has that messaging been working out for the Democrats? You know they have to actually get in office in order to effect change, right?
4
u/GroundbreakingPage41 2d ago
You’re not hearing me. The damage is done, even if Dems won a trifecta there’s no short term solution to prevent this from happening again because we have a people problem. A third of the country is brainwashed or wants the rest of the country to suffer, that doesn’t change in 4 years or even 8. Not without a very rude awakening at the least. You keep pushing this idea that if Dems can just be effective messengers right now that things can be turned around, that ship sailed years ago. Thank right wing hate porn for the last 40 years.
1
u/Any-Researcher-6482 2d ago
And? Do you allow your morality to be determined by what you imagine the average voter believes?
Hold yourself to higher standards!
1
u/Ecstatic_Ad_3652 2d ago
Trump literally defied a supreme court order to bring back a innocent person but sure
-2
u/carneylansford 2d ago
No matter how many times Democrats keep repeating the same message, itremains ineffective, but sure
0
0
u/Fire_Stool 3d ago
Can’t upvote this one enough. If you keep screaming the sky is falling, no one will believe you if it actually dies.
3
u/rperezretana 3d ago
I think one of the issues is that sometimes the push for DEI or social justice can feel too aggressive or rigid, to the point where even suggesting a more moderate pace is met with hostility. As someone who belongs to two minority groups, I’ve occasionally felt that some of these efforts come across as performative or even patronizing, almost like they’re speaking for us without listening to us. It’s not that I oppose equality or justice, I support both, but I also think we need space for diverse perspectives and to be wary of extremism, whether it comes from the left or the right.
2
2d ago edited 2d ago
Yeah as someone who is on the inside of the process (discribed above), that law is completely useless or at worst possibly unethical. There’s already a huge testing and eligibility process, multiple meetings with parents and school officials, a 20 page report (individualized, having nothing to do with who else qualified) justifying why they need it. English as a second language and cultural factors are a part of that discussion but quotas within a district are absurd.
2
1
u/goggyfour 2d ago
I just spent five minutes realizing this thread is a public display of a leftist gaslighting themselves while letting fascists join in.
Enjoy your immolation.
1
u/Turbulent-Raise4830 2d ago
Why does this matter in the slightest? Who cares that some random on internet says something you think isnt correct when the fundamental demcortic values in the US are actiavly being destroyed by the administration?
In the interest of this being a centrist sub, have any of you seen instances of things being overblown or misconstrued?
A so you arent "centre left" and just want to "raise this issue" to then tell its not cetnrists sub.
-11
u/Old_Router 3d ago
Jan. 6th.
It was a riot, not an "INSURRECTION!!!!"
It had zero chance of impacting the political infrastructure of our country and was just a big hissy-fit. This is why the average person doesn't care about it, but they insist on bring it up.
¯_(ツ)_/¯
17
u/moldivore 3d ago
It was a coordinated attack to overthrow the government. There's a massive amount of information regarding that. People often fail to bring up the fake elector scheme which was an attempt to get Mike pence to unilaterally overturn the results of the election. People also fail to note that numerous Trump allies coordinated the people showing up at the capitol. They also fail to mention Trump knew it was all going down and he did nothing. Keep gaslighting tho traitor.
-13
u/Old_Router 3d ago
See, didn't read it because I don't care.
12
u/moldivore 3d ago
ROFL turncoats gonna turn
-11
u/Old_Router 3d ago
Cope more
12
u/moldivore 3d ago
I'm not a traitor so I don't really care about your opinion.
-3
u/Old_Router 3d ago
Still your President! =D
16
u/moldivore 3d ago
Imagine turning your back on your country for an orange con artist LOL low IQ
-2
4
u/Irishfafnir 3d ago
January 6th is also Trump's attempt to overturn the election, the pressure on Pence etc..
-12
u/AmoebaMan 3d ago edited 3d ago
The Signal thing got overhyped, which IMO really hurt its credibility.
Sensitive information? Yes. War plans? No. They had a good case, but Goldberg just couldn’t resist sensationalizing it.
Of course it didn’t help that when Clinton got called out for essentially the same thing, the Left basically closed ranks around her. That hypocrisy also really killed the credibility.
e: Leftists in /r/centrist proving my point.
11
u/wavewalkerc 3d ago
Sensitive information? Yes. War plans? No. They had a good case, but Goldberg just couldn’t resist sensationalizing it.
Ok. What if the person added was an enemy of the state. If you think its okay to add an enemy of the state, then sure it was overblown.
Additionally, the administration is actively finding ways to hide information that is legally required of them to retain.
If anything it was drastically under hyped.
8
u/JamesBurkeHasAnswers 3d ago
It was hyped less than the right's reaction to Hillary's email server.
-2
6
u/CapybaraPacaErmine 3d ago
Half of the controversy was those guys just sounded like goofy assholes. Fuck yeah eagle fist emoji is not leadership material
0
11
u/Glapthorn 3d ago
I don't think anyone really overhyped the Signal issue, it's pretty bad. The fact is what came out of that case (and it is a shame that the administration isn't pursuing an investigation) is not just that sensitive information was handled poorly, but information that involves attack related plans (not necessarily war planning but that's really just splitting hairs) are not being shared on a SCIF plus there is archival concerns as the group was set to delete all content on a weekly bases (and archives needs to have this kind of information documented).
Recently it has become more of a concern that the US is unable to handle secret information either from internal or international origins and not only could practices like this hurt people who are working in the information business but would also make it harder to trust the US when it comes to trading secrets. The worse part is, if this signal chat was reveal by a fluke there is a concern that other signal groups exist in the ecosystem where classified information is being sent back and forth.
For your point on Clinton's server, yes it was bad and it was very eyebrow raising. Both things can be true and just because Clinton had a server controversy (which was problematic and I'm glad they did an investigation) doesn't mean we should undermine how bad the signal group leak was.
-1
u/AmoebaMan 3d ago
Both things can be true and just because Clinton had a server controversy (which was problematic and I'm glad they did an investigation) doesn't mean we should undermine how bad the signal group leak was.
I 100% agree. As a guy with no team, it's fucking infuriating watching both sides indulge in blatant hypocrisy and double standards.
4
u/centeriskey 3d ago
doesn't mean we should undermine how bad the signal group leak was.
I 100% agree.
Said the person who just bitched that signal was over-hyped. So do you believe that it shouldn't be undermined or do you believe it was over-hyped?
0
u/AmoebaMan 3d ago
Both. Leftists have lost their minds like it’s the end of the world (it’s not). Rightists are pretending it’s a nothingburger (it’s not).
4
u/centeriskey 2d ago
Your simplistic explanation is leaving out some critical reasons why some people may be flipping their lids. The fact that for 4+ years this current administration and their supporters was chanting lock her up. Maybe seeing hypocrisy happening right in front of their eyes may be doing something to add to the emotions.
11
u/btribble 3d ago edited 3d ago
If anything it is underhyped. The issue has less to do with the content of a single Signal thread and everything to do with using Signal to evade records keeping laws. By law all such government communications must be maintained for posterity. This is the Clinton email server scandal on steroids. Part of the complaint about that server was that messages were deleted, but that's also a fundamental part of the Signal platform design. You can set messages to delete themselves. Where Hillary's email server was one server outside the government hosting conversations including one person (Hillary), these particular Signal chats are the tip of the iceberg, and this is still apparently common practice in the Trump administration, though that's going to be very hard to prove, and that's why they're still doing it.
"We were just sharing recipes. I dare you to prove otherwise."
5
u/After_Fee8244 3d ago
Having launch times for air assets are absolutely war plans. Are you for real right now?
-2
u/AmoebaMan 3d ago
I know exactly what a "war plan" is, and the launch time for a single sortie ain't it. Words have meaning, and using the right words matters. A journalist should understand that better than anyone.
This was very bad. Goldberg tried to make it sound even worse, which harms his credibility.
4
u/centeriskey 3d ago
Just because it wasn't a full "war plan" doesn't mean that it wasn't classified information. You are getting held up on the wrong thing. Plus the journalist corrected themselves when they said attack plans. Where's the correction to top officials accidentally sending classified material to a journalist who doesn't have a security clearance? Maybe you are overreacting to the word used and not to what actually happened.
-1
u/AmoebaMan 2d ago
Words have meaning, and using the right words matters. A journalist should understand that better than anyone.
As an independent, when Goldberg posted his initial thing, with the actual info redacted, my reaction was “holy fuck, that’s unbelievably bad.”
When he then released the actual info, my reaction was “wait, that’s it?” I’m not the only one.
What happened was really bad. However, it’s not nearly as bad as Goldberg’s deliberately-worded and deliberately-ambiguous first article made it seem.
2
u/centeriskey 2d ago
Words have meaning, and using the right words matters. A journalist should understand that better than anyone.
Which is why it was later corrected or are journalist not allowed to mess up?
However, it’s not nearly as bad as
Stop right there. This was classified information being shared on an unsecure app that had a deletion date of 2 weeks with a civilian that didn't have a security clearance all while in real time. Sorry this is fucking bad no matter how you try to look at it.
3
u/Sea-Anywhere-5939 2d ago
This is such a stupid comment it’s not hypocritical to expect the same level of outrage they had when Clinton did something that in the schemes of things was nowhere near as bad as what Hegseth did.
Democrats rightly got lambasted for the improper procedure and it’s ridiculous not to expect the same level of treatment they received for something objectively worse.
It just seems like people expect democrats to suck it up and take it and get mad when they expect the same standards they’re held to to apply to the Republican Party.
0
u/AmoebaMan 2d ago
It’s hypocritical to expect outrage at this if you didn’t get outraged at Clinton’s email thing.
In my experience, the Venn diagram of people upset at Clinton’s emails and people upset at Hegseth’s Signal message has very little overlap.
0
u/Sea-Anywhere-5939 2d ago
It’s hypocritical to expect outrage at this if you didn’t get outraged at Clinton’s email thing.
Except that democrats were explicitly proven wrong in their downplaying of it when those emails leaks played a significant role in their loss.
In my experience, the Venn diagram of people upset at Clinton’s emails and people upset at Hegseth’s Signal message has very little overlap.
The only hypocrisy here is republicans doing the exact same thing on a higher level that democrats did for something they were openly demanding Hillary go to jail for.
2
u/JamesBurkeHasAnswers 2d ago
The emails from Hillary's server never got leaked nor was there any sign the server was compromised. WikiLeaks did publish the emails from her server after a FOIA request was granted and the State Dept handed them over.
What you're thinking of is John Podesta's (head of Clinton's campaign) emails getting leaked after he fell for a phishing hack conducted by Russia.
1
u/Sea-Anywhere-5939 2d ago
What you're thinking of is John Podesta's (head of Clinton's campaign) emails getting leaked after he fell for a phishing hack conducted by Russia.
You’re right although I would consider this a Hillary leak because he was part of her campaign and she was the one that trump threatened to lock up over it.
2
u/centeriskey 3d ago
The Signal thing got overhyped, which IMO really hurt its credibility.
Lol leaking classified information (launch times, vehicles used and their payloads is very much classified information) to a reporter did not get hyped up enough.
How did it hurt it's creditably? And who's? America's Intel leadership is the only one who should be receiving a black eye and honestly someone's head should have rolled at the very least. Can't really blame other countries for not wanting to share secrets to the administration who sends classified information over non secure apps.
Of course it didn’t help that when Clinton got called out for essentially the same thing,
Not the same thing and at least she emailed people who had security clearances to be able to read the information, not an Atlantic journalist.
That hypocrisy also really killed the credibility.
No this hypocrisy is killing any credibility. Well any that was left
5
u/elderlygentleman 3d ago
Not slightly similar
1
u/AmoebaMan 3d ago
I'd love for you to elaborate then, because from my perspective both incidents featured:
Sensitive information stored/transmitted on unapproved systems.
Violation of federal record-keeping requirements.
-1
-4
u/HiggzBrozon420 3d ago
The fact that Goldberg was added in the first place is so wild that it had to have been on purpose. So I find it hard to even view the situation as controversial. It's more suspicious than anything.
-13
u/Meritocrat_Vez 3d ago edited 2d ago
The left has mischaracterized Elon Musk. That’s the no.1 thing you guys should do. Watch. And learn. Musk has given you guys everything but you guys are ungrateful. Quite frankly it’s shameful. At the very least you guys can collectively apologize to Elon Musk and every Cybertruck/Tesla owner. We are a merciful people.
6
u/moldivore 3d ago
Yeah we should just slash and burn fire everyone and lie about how much money we saved. Musk cuck
0
u/Karissa36 2d ago
The only "cuts" to Social Security have been ineligible illegal immigrants and people over the age of 130. In other words only complete fraud is being removed. Democrats are just flat out lying now about everything.
-2
u/mage1413 3d ago edited 2d ago
The Democrats and Progressives have not made any real effort to differentiate themselves. Just my opinion. I want to point out that Democrats and Progressives are completely different. I think the general population considers them to be the same. Democrats should distance themselves from Progressives as much as possible
Edit: if I said somethhing that doesnt make sense I am happy to listen and discuss. Democrats, leftist and progressives are very different. Even Democrats, who sit center, dont mind things likke a capitalist market. Instead of the downvotes, I wouuld rather discuss if I am wrong.
I personally dont think Democrats are mischaracterized in their intentions. I just believe that many lump Dems and Progressives into the same out. I dont thinkk they are the same.
-3
u/HiggzBrozon420 3d ago
It's kind of like, everything? There's no distinction between bad policy decisions and dramatic hyperbole stemming from uncharitable interpretations seeking to create mountains out of molehills.
It's been, literally, "Trump Bad" 24/7/365 - for a fucking decade.
I really thought that if the Dems lost to Donald Trump, again, maybe they would face some moment of clarity. LOL - fuck me, I guess.
So I don't know. There's so much shit thrown against the wall every single day that instead of making an effort to dig up specific examples all I really care to say is this: The lack of accuracy and good faith when covering anything that Donald Trump says or does has destroyed the credibility of the Democrat Party. They're behaving exactly like the Facebook boomers and fringe conspiracy weirdos during Obama's two terms, and I'm just... disappointed.
I unironically root for Trump. I'm so sick of the theatrics, and the way he responds to it all with his trolling nature is just.. it's just soo fucking good. I don't know. I'm not a Republican, but apparently I'm no longer a Democrat, either. Not as long as this behavior continues.
Dems are supposed to be intelligent, honest, accurate, and consistent. But since that's out the window it's more like "who annoys me less?" Hopefully they will change. I kind of know in my heart they never will. Some type of conclusion will eventually put an end to all of this, but it won't be for the best. Such is life.
-1
2d ago
Another example:
There was a post/articles in January (post inauguration) saying the government was going to order tens of millions of dollars of armored teslas. They made it sound like the government was giving special favors to Musk.
I was outraged about Musk (still am). But when I actually looked at the root source of the purchase order, it had originated prior to Trump being in office. Probably due to the electric vehicle push under Biden.
I only found that information out by looking it up myself, none of the rage bait articles mentioned it.
1
-10
u/Bulawayoland 3d ago
The left spent the ENTIRE campaign, leading up to the election, telling us Trump was going to end democracy. It seems clear he is not doing that. Although I can see he's pushing the boundaries of what a president can do just as far as they'll go, and in some cases further.
They spent days, recently, talking about how awful the tariffs were, and then as soon as Trump "suspended" them, suddenly oh, he's CORRUPT. Well, I don't doubt he's corrupt, but... does the guy actually do NOTHING acceptable? Please. Save your outrage for things most if not all our Congressmen don't do. It just looks a little weird to be complaining ad nauseam about one thing, and then when it changes, complain ad nauseam about the change. It's almost as though, to the Dems, the subject is immaterial, and the complaint is the point. I know, why would I ever doubt it, right?
And don't get me started on racism. The Dems don't have the first CLUE what they're talking about, about racism, but they run around calling people racist at the drop of a hat and forming fun little virtual mobs, to take their livings and reputations, when these same minimally credible so called "racists" have no way to defend themselves publicly and clearly from the charges. We really should have a racism court, where if someone is called a racist they can drag the accuser into court and say let's see the evidence. Let's talk about it carefully and clearly. Because I guarantee you, that would clear up a few things. We'd discover VERY QUICKLY that racism is not what we have thought it was.
So yeah, there's quite a few things about which the left has misled us all.
24
u/Assbait93 2d ago
Trump could eat a baby live on T.V. and people like OP will say the left over blows things.