US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5506

On February 15 2026 17:17 oBlade wrote:

Listen, whether centrist or independent or unaffiliated or whatever, if you want to quibble that centrist should mean something like in the middle on most issues rather than mixed on all issues. That's a fair demarcation to make. But to me the interpretation of "centrist" as such makes the golden mean fallacy inherent in the term. Like, are you for global thermonuclear war, or no nuclear war? Ah, I'm a radical centrist, I prefer a medium nuclear war. Who would ever choose or want to be a centrist defined as such. But that goes over most people's heads and is not the key point here, is it. You can choose the specific word. Politicalcompass (-1.25, 0.1). 8values Centrist Patriotic Moderate Neutral. No party registration. Supported Obama and Trump. Disapprove of 80% of politicians.

I'm pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, want steeper taxes on high incomes. Bernie Sanders' social security plan was a good idea. Bush's wasn't. I want government to be bigger and cheaper (think New Deal but nonpartisan). And want to cut defense spending in half at least. I am broadly in favor of single payer healthcare. I hate civil asset forfeiture.


NATO should be stronger.


From here it starts to creep into my head what your left/right definitions are. Anti-war is left. Hawkish is traditionally right.

My view on Israel is they should exist and they're a US ally, Ukraine should also exist but except for the fact that the country that attacked them is a US enemy, they're not an ally per se. Even if they wanted to be. Though they are a friendly partner on our periphery. Now obviously attacking someone before they become someone's ally, so they can't become an ally, is its own problem. But it's more largely a European problem. Even though Russia is a polar adversary. For example if Venezuela attacked Bukele I would expect it mainly to be a US problem in our hemisphere. So in both Israel and Ukraine I believe the amount of free support they get from the US is not strictly warranted.

In Ukraine's case, my view is they have lost the war. Which is unfortunate to say the least, but getting people killed because it hurts Russia is not going to undo that reality. So my opinion in Ukraine is to end the war on paper that has already been decided in reality.


"Free trade" is like a 4 decades long right-wing corporatist trickle-down economics meme. I'm pro-fair trade and think a hegemon like the US must have the capability to handle core industries as part of its national security. Legitimately there is a national difference here. The differences force different policy priorities. A country like Canada, or Cuba, or Singapore, doesn't matter how geographically big or small or rich or poor, inherently experiences dependencies that it can't avoid, that huge countries at some level MUST avoid (or control with great care). Absolutely no offense to Canadians, of whom my uncle is one. The political calculus is different. Like it's okay if the US and Canada are codependent. It's not okay that the US relies on China. Whatever system made that result is wrong. Hyper-focus is a pendulum reaction to decades of no focus. Do I think the math always has to add up to $0 to be fair? No. The number is not the problem, the problem is what the number represents. Like if you decrease cholesterol in a population to stop heart attacks but it ends up that more of them die. Then you failed. The problem is what is happening to our economies, not the fact that it's approximated in a statistic.


Most executive orders aren't to do with emergencies. They are simply the most official mechanism of how the president runs the branch that is subordinate to him. Along with proclamations and memoranda. They aren't ALL substitutes for policy that the president can't get passed as law through Congress.

Again I wonder the backdrop gauge you are using. The meme conception of the right is they want small government, so that means meek and ineffectual presidents. Yet being okay with presidents exercising their statutory authority either in Article 2 or delegated to them by acts of Congress - like the tariff powers - is also going to be right-coded? That would be a rhetorical trap, whether prepared deliberately or not.

I believe the president should be strong within their purview. I also believe Congress should be strong within their purview. But their (Congress's) own incompetence especially can't tie the other branches' hands. The president does appear stronger in comparison when Congress is a perpetual stalemate of childish corporatist cliques. Nevertheless, we need someone running the show.


The ACA is a failure. It had no public option and has increased premiums way over the baseline trend. My view is: I wish it hadn't.

The temporary extended subsidies Democrats shut down the federal government over largely benefited people making $100k-$200k who don't need handouts. While there's still a nationwide Medicare gap below the poverty line. Besides all of which "coverage" is not "healthcare" and care quality per dollar has gotten even worse along with health outcomes.


Voter ID is like an 80/20 issue. And it's specifically in the constitution that Congress can decide how federal elections are run. Trump is not in the picture. I do not care about Trump's grievances. Like I do not care one time Trump said X number of people voted illegally, but we looked at Oregon and found they only registered about 1000 immigrants to vote through the DMV because they had driver's licenses, so Trump is exaggerating.

Fedsurrection if you're talking about the idea that "glowies" did January 6th, Patel made a similar mistake very early I saw, thinking when the FBI said they had agents on the ground he played it up like there were 250 undercover instigators. At some press conference or hearing. Which is a lie by misrepresentation. If that's basically what you're referring to here, then there was no "fedsurrection."


I am against all public crypto grifting and believe that should be kept within the private sector. That said, there are people who view crypto as a valid financial instrument and are into it. I'm not into it, like I'm not into mutual funds, but I don't have a problem with either existing. I really don't know that much except it's probably possible to go too far in criminalizing anything connected to crypto the way 10 years ago people thought bitcoin is just drug dealers. Or maybe I'm wrong and really it is all drug dealers and wire fraud, in which case less oversight is wrong.

The FCPA I had to look up, they paused in February and restarted in June?

Of all the subjects you listed these are probably the ones I'm most lacking on and would need to expand my knowledge of to fairly figure out any particular view I might have.


#3 certainly not really only. My point is simply for example, say Trump launches a memecoin, which he did, and I read the news and am not in favor of it, but it doesn't happen to motivate me to post about it on a Starcraft website, I'm certainly not more motivated to prove, in some exculpatory fashion, my opposition to it after I open the website and see a European non-voter has already called me a fascist bootlicking Nazi for not having posted about it yet.

Obama the main thing we weren't aligned on is DACA. He implemented it knowing it was BS because they couldn't get it through Congress. He thinks it didn't go through Congress because it's good, I think it didn't go through Congress because it's bad. And Reagan's amnesty was empirically to the left of Obama.


Yes. There is not a way to deport people without making some of them sad. Trump enforces more in sanctuary jurisdictions which causes leftists to follow DHS around and crash cars into them. Despite calling Obama the Deporter-in-Chief, leftists weren't as radicalized back then and they weren't as all-in on sanctuary policies.