Fair and Balanced

The right: "Genocide trans people!"

The left: "no"

Centrists: "these are both radical positions"

Wow, what a complete misunderstanding of what a centrist is.
- Now you see what "if you're not with us, you're against us" really means...
  
  Never admit to being a centrist, because both sides don't see you as a potential ally, they see you as an enemy. Then you just end up everyone's enemy, despite the fact that you're just trying to get along and try to see different perspectives, make intelligent judgements, and do some critical thinking.
- Not really, at least not in American politics if you've been paying any attention to what both parties are saying.
  
  I could be considered a centrist, I hold a pretty solid ammount of traditionally conservative opinions on some things, and a lot of liberal ones on others. I will absolutely never call myself a centrist though.
  
  I disagree with the Democratic party on a lot of things, but I can overall at least see where they're coming from, understand their beliefs, and while I don't think that they are, I can concede that there's a possibility that they may be right on those issues and I'm the one who is wrong. We can agree to disagree on those points.
  
  On the other hand, my disagreements with the Republican party tend to be about things that I consider tantamount to genocide and other horrific human rights abuses. Issues that I am not willing to give them an inch on. Even if many Republicans dont, or at least claim to not have those sorts of opinions, they've still officially thrown their lot in with the types of people who loudly and openly proclaim that they want to commit those sorts of atrocities, and do little to nothing to rebuke those lunatics or distance themselves from them, which means that at best they don't care about those issues and at worst are silently totally in support of these terrible acts, and I cannot accept any position along that spectrum. There is absolutely nothing on the Republican party platform that I agree with enough to turn a blind eye to the serious issues I have with them. Those issues are so repulsive to be that they totally invalidate any good they say or do (which really isn't much, they pretty much only pay lip service to the sorts of issues I agree with them on while often doing the exact opposite)
  
  And saying that you're a centrist implies that you fall somewhere between the two parties. What's in between "meh" and "deplorable?" That's not really a place I'd want to be.
- That's maybe not what a textbook centrist is, but definitely what most centrists in real life are.

This isn't a centrist... It's a conservative.

congratulations you figured it out
centrists are just conservatives who don't have the balls to be open about it
Welcome to the joke bro
They political spectrum has moved so far right in the states that a true centrist position would be considered socialist.
Wow, you've got it. Centrists just end up being people enabling conservatives and fascists.

These are the kind of people that will look for a compromise between "We want equal rights" and "Kill all (scapegoat of the week)".
Or just a lame ass contrarian

I used to consider myself a centrist. But in my not-all-too-extensive lifetime, I've seen some of my views go from being considered centrist to being considered leftist to being considered radical leftist without changing. At some point, I just decided to say fuck it, you want to label me a leftist nutjob, I'll roll with it.

Center is relative. And in the US, there's been a documented and deliberate effort from conservatives to push the country's political ideology further and further to the right for the past a little over fifty years, it started right after Nixon lost to Kennedy but really kicked into high gear during Nixon's first successful presidential campaign. So being a centrist used to be a reasonable position to hold. But it shifted. It moved. It was moved to the point where being a centrist means holding the expert and the kook in equal regard. If you really want to be a centrist between ideologies, between pure socialism and pure capitalism, between authoritarian and libertarian, between all the different political, social, economic and other ideologies, we don't have that. We're so far conservative economically, politically, and in most other ways that our "left-wing" party is right-of-center.

Why was Roosevelt's Workers Bill of Rights too radical and reasonable to oppose? I'll even go further, what was "so far left", that it was ever reasonable to oppose it and be a centrist?

to wit: an "economic bill of rights" to guarantee these specific rights:

Employment (right to work[notes 1]) An adequate income for food, shelter, and recreation Farmers' rights to a fair income Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies Decent housing Adequate medical care Social security Education

Saying that you are a centrist is the "Not like other girls" of politics.

In my opinion, it's more like the "Nice Guy" of politics.
This couldn't be more apt.

"If you're not with us, you're against us."

That's a Republican talking point!

Responsible limits on campaign contributions are not remotely at odds with thinking money can be used on speech.

Writing a book is undeniably free speech. So why would it not be free speech if you pay out of pocket and self-publish? What if a group of people get together and pay to publish it as a collective?

Or how about Chevron running an ad saying "buy our gas." What if the ad says "buy our gas because global warming isn't real?" What if the ad says "vote for Eric Erickson, a staunch global warming denier?"

All are money, all are free speech, but not all are political speech. We don't need corporations or billionaires throwing unlimited money at political speech.

It's also worth pointing out that corporations aren't citizens, and aren't people - they have no more right to first amendment protections than your pet parrot or Vladimir Putin.
What if a group of people get together and pay to publish it as a collective?

Sounds like a corporation to me. What if the book is political? Now you've got a corporation throwing money at political speech. Can't have that.

The problem with the OP comic like most such comics is that it's demonizing the acknowledgement of nuance and considering arguments to have merit when they do. It can be simultaneously true that campaign finance laws serve a valid purpose for protecting democracy from regulatory capture, and that they risk enabling oppressive violations of free expression. There is nothing wrong with realizing this, people should be thinking things through enough to become conflicted about them.

The middle half duh

expired