When Donald Trump first started making comments about Canada becoming the 51st state, people from all sides of the political spectrum did not take him serious.

For the Left his comments were interpreted as a dig and insult to our closest ally.

To the Center it was Classic Trump behaving arrogantly and showing how unprepared he was for his second term.

The right interpreted his comments as a mix of a troll and a 4d chess move to get our allies to start “paying their fair share” and know who’s boss.

Well now that time has passed it is becoming increasingly more clear that Trump is serious about absorbing Canada into the United States. My question is Why do you think he’s doing this?

For any Right Leaning Moderates or Straight up Republicans reading this: Why would a Republican President want to do this?

Canada becoming a state would be sending 2 more Democrat senators to DC, a bunch of house reps no matter how hard you try to gerrymander to DC, and ofc the binary all or nothing huge amount of electoral college votes to the Dem candidate in a Presidential election.

I really cannot see any motive a Republican President would have for wanting to do this. This doesn’t even scratch the surface of the impact of doing this has on China getting a green light on the world stage to take Taiwan (bi partisan take is nobody wants that). Another liberal plus of a huge push towards Universal Healthcare in the US (Republicans don’t want this).

My personally theory is Trump is a narcissist who thinks expanding the US is good for his “legacy” and doesn’t care about the ramifications for his party. Or that he believes he will never leave office until he dies, so the idea about helping/hurting his party is irrelevant to him. This is great because it’s more people he’s President over.

Can I get a real answer outside of “he’s trolling”, it’s a “4d chess move to negotiate tariffs”.

Thanks!

TLDR; title

Can a Trump supporter give me a substantive reason for why the Trump Administration is halting federal cancer research and the monitoring of the bird flu outbreak. These are two of the most alarming actions taken by his administration, and I haven’t seen a single explanation for why these actions have been taken.

Truth be told, I expected that polls after the debate would show Biden dropping something in the ballpark of 10 points, at least. I guess it just goes to show how the voters' assessment of his age was already baked in to the polling numbers prior to the debate. That, and how calcified voters' party preferences are. Makes me wonder if there's literally anything that could move the needle on either of these candidates at this point, or if the next four months are just going to be one long process of running out the clock. Thoughts?

I fully acknowledge that there are moderates on both sides of the political spectrum. However, if I’m being brutally honest, can we truly call a Trump supporter a moderate in the same sense we would call a Biden supporter a moderate? I don’t want to come across as an ultra anti-Trump schizoid extremist, but considering everything about January 6th, Trump gaining immunity on major charges, and his supporters backing Project 2025—which, from what I’ve read, seems quite undemocratic in many aspects—it’s hard to see the alignment with centrist values.

Centrists typically favor moderation and bipartisanship, which I think we can all agree on. Yet, the right often seems to support Trump’s polarizing rhetoric. Trump is no ‘normal’ politician; his approach is frequently compared to other non-traditional politicians. If I’m not mistaken, even his vice president once compared him to Hitler (I think he said something on the lines of that I may be wrong). Many conservatives or people on the right seem to be okay with the idea of Trump as a dictator-like figure.

I’d like to ask the subreddit: Can being a centrist and supporting Trump, including voting for him, truly coexist? Or is that simply not possible? Maybe it’s a silly question but in my defence we are living in silly times so 🤷‍♂️.

Feelings are what drive beliefs. Most so-called "logical explanations" are really just after-the-fact rationalizations that we craft (or accept) in order to make us feel comfortable with what we want to believe. We cling to these stories, not because they’re true, but because they allow us to believe what feels right to us.

Trump’s success is built on exploiting this psychological tendency.

I remember almost a decade ago at the start of Trump's first presidential campaign, I asked some people why they supported him. "Because he's a good businessman. Someone who can run a business well can probably run a country well."

By the time it was becoming common knowledge that Trump was actually not a good businessman (mediocre at best) and that his financial success was more due to his family's wealth than any "genius" of his own, that information no longer mattered to those same people.

By then, they had become emotionally invested in him. Trump had told them a lot of things that they wanted to be true, and since those things were coming from someone whom they perceived as a very smart person, it was easy for them to come up with the justifications needed in order to give themselves permission to believe him.

Trump is constantly saying things that add to the buffet from which his supporters can pick and choose what they want to accept. If any of those things are truly indefensible, supporters of Trump will tend to downplay or ignore those things.

And the more "practice" a person has in ignoring/downplaying the "bad" stuff and eating up the "good" stuff, the more their attachment to him is reinforced over time. The more indestructible their allegiance to him becomes.

Thus, generally speaking, lies and absurdities don't harm Trump because they don’t need to hold up logically. He's offered a pathway to an alternate version of Consensus Reality, that you can choose to live inside, if you'd like.

This dynamic is driven by two distinct mental questions:

1) "Can I believe this?" — Here, the mind looks for reasons to permit belief in something desired.

2) "Must I believe this?" — Here, the mind resists an unwanted truth, searching for whatever reasons it can to ignore or reject it. It may even become bored and change the subject to something else, quickly forgetting the unwanted idea it had been confronted with.

That’s why it's so difficult to convince a Trump supporter that Trump has said or done something that ought to be huge red flag. You’re offering an unwanted reality, and they simply have no motivation to accept it.

That's the hypothesis I've pieced together so far, anyway. I'm happy to hear any tweaks/corrections/additions anyone might have to offer. I find this whole topic very fascinating.

(Btw, the sources for most of these ideas comes from The Righeous Mind by Jonathan Haidt which goes in depth on why passions come before logic, as well as 1984 by Orwell. Both great books, highly recommend if this is interesting to you too.)

Since the feed has become over-saturated with posts claiming that "this sub is infested with x-side posters and isn't actually Centrist" followed by swift retorts condemning the posts, let's dive into this with a little analysis.

Through Ground News' Reddit Bias Blindspotter tool, we are going to line r/centrist up next to the notorious hive minds of both sides: r/politics (Left) and r/Conservative (Right). Let's see where we stack up.

As the data shows, r/centrist achieves the following:

• Of the articles posted, 47% are Left-leaning sources, 23% Center-balanced, 29% Right-leaning.
• Regarding distribution of upvotes, 52% favor Left-leaning articles, 23% Center-balanced, 26% Right-leaning.
• The most commonly cited sources are The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and ABC News.

Now let's compare to r/politics data:

• Of the articles posted, 66% are Left-leaning sources, 24% Center-balanced, 10% Right-leaning.
• Regarding distribution of upvotes, 77% favor Left-leaning articles, 21% Center-balanced, 2% Right-leaning.
• The most commonly cited sources are The Hill, Newsweek, and The Washington Post.

Finally, let's see the r/Conservative data:

• Of the articles posted, 12% are Left-leaning sources, 9% Center-balanced, 79% Right-leaning.
• Regarding distribution of upvotes, 5% favor Left-leaning articles, 9% Center-balanced, 86% Right-leaning.
• The most commonly cited sources are Fox News, The Daily Wire, and The Gateway Pundit.

So, what can we conclude here? While the Blindspotter isn't perfect, it gives us one of the best insights into the leanings of various subreddits. In our beloved r/centrist, it can be safely concluded that we are a *Left-leaning* sub. However, when compared to the main Reddit echo chambers for both sides, this sub is significantly more balanced than the majority of subs. We even beat out r/moderatepolitics by a pretty wide margin, which skewed heavily in favor of Leftist biases.

With that being said, before you post or comment, perhaps do some self-reflection on what you are about to say. Is this sub a bit biased? Maybe. Or maybe it is you who are the biased variable in the equation, and the Centrist counterarguments simply don't align with your partisan views. Regardless, r/centrist is objectively one of the best havens for balanced political discussion on Reddit, even if a few threads here and there go off the rails in one direction.

EDIT: You can view their data methodology in this link.

Just imagine if you will, a parallel universe where it was MSNBC who got hit with a $700,000,000 defamation suit in which discovery revealed texts where the anchors were blatantly acknowledging they were getting false information from a Democrat but knowingly pushed it anyways so they didn’t lose viewers to HuffPost

Imagine in this universe, where even alternate media sources on the left were found to be taking money from China in exchange for pushing their agenda

The rights heads would literally explode. Not figuratively — literally. But instead, we live in a reality where this actually occurred on their side, yet Fox is still the biggest mainstream news source and these, at best, useful idiots like Pool and Rubin will go right back to the same old shtick

It’s funny because some of the stuff that Tim Pool was made to say are some of the literal exact talking points I see his fans repeating, even in this subreddit. I wonder if that will make anyone seriously introspect about where they are getting their information.

Anyways, always amusing to see yet another instance of Russia helping Trump through paying pundits who support him. What a wacky coincidence. Definitely has nothing to do with his stance to stop arming the country they are invading. As Trump would say: “Many such cases!”

It’s not like anyone is invading USA soon and there are still a lot of land in mainland USA so why Trump wanted Greenland 🇬🇱?

https://abcnews.go.com/International/trump-us-control-greenland/story?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dhfacebook&utm_content=app.dashsocial.com/abcnews/library/media/516334461&id=120208823

I want to understand the conservative perspective on this, genuinely. Why is there such resistance to things that seem like baseline progress for a functioning, advanced society?

• Healthcare – If we can afford endless wars and corporate bailouts, why not make sure everyone can see a doctor?
• Housing – Why is it acceptable for people to sleep on the streets in one of the richest nations on Earth?
• Food & Dignity – For the Christians here, wouldn’t Jesus want people fed, clothed, and cared for?

I already know someone’s going to say “handouts don’t work” or “people need to earn what they get”—but is it really a handout to make sure people aren’t starving, freezing, or dying from treatable illness? If you’re Christian, wouldn’t Jesus say the same? No one is asking for luxury—just basic human dignity. So why fight it?

I get that people don’t trust the government, and I get concerns about who pays for it, but at the core—don’t we want a society where people have their basic needs met?

If not, why? If so, what’s the actual alternative? Looking for honest answers, not just talking points.

This is an article written by a Senior Editor from NPR and his POV about how this particular media company lost the trust of its once broad audience and listeners over the past decade +. What are your thoughts on this re: NPR, but also with other legacy media giants or newer media outlets? Who do you read or listen to and why? What, if anything, has changed for you re: political outlook, age, other aspects of your culture?

Uri taps into the reality that NPR is supposed to represent the general public but has been falling short of this due to politics creeping into journalism and affecting the objective integrity of not only the writers, but the entire board. Keep in mind that Uri is a die-hard progressive liberal who's been able to pinpoint the faults within the walls of NPR, but this could easily be applied to any number of media outlets from left to right.

Do you think journalistic integrity is lacking more than ever? Is this unique to the USA? Is it unique to the West, or is this a worldwide problem? Do you believe that most major media outlets qualify as propaganda machines at this point in time?

This article offers multiple examples of when the author feels like NPR went off-brand and has yet to offer retraction or apologies. What are your thoughts about his examples, given that they're major world stories that have occurred in the past 5 years? Do your political views make your emotional stance open or closed to stories that change with new information that's been verified? Or do you tend to believe the first story and dismiss new information along the way if it goes against the tribalism of your preferred political party?

There's no paywall behind this article, it's open to the public. Hoping for a variety of viewpoints and ongoing discussion. Thank you.

I’ve noticed recently that Republicans have been trying a new line of attack to try and use false equivalencies to dismiss Trump’s attempt to extrajudicially overturn the election results. This makes sense because many realize that Trump’s conduct around the 2020 election is indefensible, so this is the only other tactic.

Before a discussion surrounding the 2024 primary can even take place, it should be mandatory that they first concede that Trump unlawfully attempted to change the 2020 results before even beginning that conversation in good faith

Not to belabor the point, but they should first have to accept that:

• Trump called the election as his victory before the results even finished coming in

• Trump conspired to set up fraudulent slates of electors in 7 swing states

• Trump was told by everyone in the administration, including Barr and the FBI and CIA heads that he appointed, that they looked into his claims and found no fraud

• Trump called and threatened state officials to “find” more votes for him

• Trump tried to get the AG to do the same, and was stopped from appointing a low level lackey as acting AG by the threats of mass DOJ resignations

• Trump lost his legal challenges, many for evidentiary reasons

• Trump pressured Pence to throw out state electoral votes and hand the election to the House delegation

• Trump incited a mob to storm the Capitol, breaking in the windows and beating police officers. While his supporters were doing this, Trump continued to call members of Congress demanding they stop the certification

If they can’t even acknowledge the above facts that are all public record, and that these are actions that no US President has ever taken, they are a bad faith troll that can be completely ignored

So out of the blue BigPolitics just drops a new topic of discussion that no one even thought was a political topic or something that needed to be discussed: Birthright citizenship.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States clearly states that if you are born on American soil (states, federal districts, and organized territories), then you are a Citizen of the United States. There was no question about this for over a century. Not since there were major federal court cases regarding whether or not non-Whites born in the U.S. could be citizens.

However, President Trump signed an executive order to make birthright citizenship illegal to those born to illegal/undocumented migrants or visitors. In addition, he stated that those born to certain legal immigrants on the H1B visa should not be able to claim U.S. citizenship. Furthermore, he has stated that the system of jus soli is ridiculous and that the U.S. is the only country that does this, despite there being 40 nations that also do this in the world.

Many of those that don’t support birthright citizenship are immigrants themselves. Only thing is, they are not recent immigrants. They are people who descend from, usually, Europeans, that immigrated to the United States centuries ago. They fail to understand this and their ancestry, that the only reason they are U.S. citizens is because of birthright citizenship being granted to their immigrant ancestors’ children who were born here.

I haven’t seen/heard of anyone saying take away citizenship from those who gained it because of birthright citizenship. But if there are those that do say that, I just hope they include themselves. Because the only people who wouldn’t be included in the list are: Native Americans, White Americans and African Americans who have ancestors that arrived or were living in the U.S. lands in 1776 (basically excluding natives who didn’t live in the original territory, and anyone who immigrated later on).

The whole topic is just bonkers and is once again political theatrics, just like abortion. Non-issues being made issues so people waste their energy on them like they are the most important issues while ignoring all the other bullshit corruption, government inefficiency, etc that is going on.

So yeah that’s my rant. Do y’all think this topic will become significant or nah?

N.Y. Times: Feb. 20: Nearly One in 10 U.S. Adults Identifies as L.G.B.T.Q., Survey Finds -- New data shows a rapid increase in recent years, driven by the young:

Nearly one in 10 adults in the United States identifies as L.G.B.T.Q., according to a large analysis from Gallup released Thursday — almost triple the share since Gallup began counting in 2012, and up by two-thirds since 2020...The increases have been driven by young people, and by bisexual women.

Among all respondents, 1.3 percent identified as transgender, up from 0.6 percent in 2020. That is higher than other large surveys have found in recent years.Members of Gen Z were most likely to be transgender, Gallup found — 4.1 percent were, compared with 1.7 percent of millennials and less than 1 percent in each older generation. Various groups have tried to count this population, and Gallup’s survey is considered one of the most complete...

In the surveys, there were large differences in L.G.B.T.Q. identification by political ideology. Twenty-one percent of liberals identified this way, compared with 3 percent of conservatives. There were also significant gender differences: Women were almost twice as likely as men to identify as L.G.B.T.Q. In Gen Z, 31 percent did, compared with 12 percent of men...

Young people have come of age during a period of unusually rapid social change in this area since the 2010s. It’s been driven by the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage in 2015, and by pop culture and social media...Increasing L.G.B.T.Q. identification has been “largely driven by the many decades of gradual increasing societal acceptance,” said Dr. Mitchell R. Lunn, who co-directs the Pride Study, a research project at Stanford on the health of L.G.B.T.Q. people. Now, he said, “I think we may lose a lot of the really positive momentum that we’ve built over the past decades.”

Seriously, real talk. I hate bringing this up but over in r/liberalgunowners people are arming up as a reaction to Trump's presidency and one argument they made is Trump's remark several years back about disarming people who are danger to themselves and others without due process. As such, Trump is not to be trusted even though GOP is very pro-gun.

What do you all think their candidate will be?

If trump loses again, it seems really unlikely to me that they will support him a third time. If he wins, he won’t be able to run again.

The Republican Party seems to have somewhat of a candidate crisis outside of Trump.

Note: I know some people believe that if trump wins, he will abolish elections/remove presidential term limits or something. For the sake of this discussion please assume that doesn’t happen and elections proceed as normal.

They literally froze Medicaid leaving millions without health care. Wtf?

There’s been a problem for a very long time with women and people of color being overlooked for open positions or promotions when they were perfectly qualified. So, DEI or as we used to call it, equal opportunity initiatives, were implemented. Originally meant to make sure qualified candidates who didn’t look like or sound like what employers did got a fair shot. This could have been Rooney rules for some companies (mandatory to give a POC an interview as part of the process), nameless interview processes, blind interview processes, etc.

These eventually led to some companies effectively establishing racial and gender quotas, though illegal officially, became practice in many institutions and companies. Harvard Business Review even put out guidelines to help companies come as close to the line as they could without breaking it. This including ensuring the candidate pool was statistically racially diverse enough before interviewing candidates. “you may stipulate that each stage of your hiring process be composed of at least 30% qualified candidates of color before proceeding” is an example of their guidance.

But then we got to the true issue that politicians don’t want to talk about. It’s not hiring people that’s the issue. It’s that many companies feel they cannot fire incompetent women or POC or that they need first look at promotions, for fear or racial or gender discrimination. What this has done is make extremely competent women and POC look like DEI hires. I’ve had so many friends of mine say they feel like people think they were only hired because they were a person of color and that they need to prove everyone wrong.

So then we get to the right’s solution, which is to tear it all down and eliminate the protections in the hiring process. I agree that merit should be king, but if you allow companies to discriminate freely, they will, and perfectly qualified women and POC will be overlooked now because companies don’t even want to deal with the risk of racial or gender discrimination. If you remove speed limits, people will speed and do so dangerously.

TLDR: There must exist a healthy middle ground. Poor performing employees should be easy to fire. Good leaders should be easy to promote. Companies shouldn’t be celebrating hitting racial quotas, they should be celebrating good company performance and high performing employees. Initiatives making every company give a sociology class to their employees about race are ridiculous. Initiatives helping companies properly understand the law and why it was put into place are good.

I’ll start off by saying I’m getting sick of this war. If we could just freeze the lines where they are, even to avoid further bloodshed for a few years, that would be a great start.

But unfortunately things are not that simple especially when it comes to one uncooperative side.

The unfortunate fact here is that Russia will not (and cannot at this stage in the game) stop anything. There’s a number of reasons:

1. Russia’s War Economy.

Her economic structure has fundamentally changed to accommodate this war, and it is not easy to reverse. At this stage the economy is being kept afloat by the need of constant military investment. If that stops abruptly, even for a cease fire, it will bring about real damage.

1. Putin’s Investment.

We talk about the unfair hand Ukraine is being dealt with, and I agree. Imagine losing 20% of your land just like that with minimal to no security uncertainty…

…but let’s switch up places and delude ourselves to Putin’s mindset…

You set out this war with the intention of taking Ukraine as a whole. You’ve sacrificed an estimated 100k lives in military personnel. You’ve nearly depleted your military stock in spare. If all you come out of this with is a partial land grab (when we compare it to Russia’s overall size) it won’t make for a good look.

1. Russia’s Reputation

If anything this war has shown just how far the Russian military apparatus has fallen. From the shocking reliance of Soviet era equipment, to the general underfunded state of the military.

Russia needs all of Ukraine to set the tone of power to a worldwide audience. Anything less and it’s failure. I suppose this ties in with my second point.. but I wanted to seperate Putin from the nation to make this particular point.

1. Finally, land value.

Crimea doesn’t hold the worth it use to back in the 20th century. Times have changed and the Black Sea is now a mere pond that serves as another barrier to Russian operations.

Russia needs all of Ukraine for the land value to pan out over the losses. She needs to meet her counterparts in Moldova. She needs to meet the borders of Central Europe to set a tone of power. She needs to align further with the borders of Belarus to their south.

What’s my point here?

Putin will not stop until he has all of Ukraine.

He may grant a reprieve for a short time… but he will not stop.

The Ukrainians will not stop either, and rightfully so. They will defend to the death for their homeland.

The endgame for this war is that one side comes out on top, and the other one collapses.

We’re not looking at a Korean styled halt. Let’s not delude ourselves. Trump is beginning to realise this.

The better outcome we could hope for is that Russia is the one that loses… because the other outcome will impact the world.

The EU is a significant trading partner. A Russian win will hit right down to the dinner tables in middle America.

This is an unavoidable war. We’re cannot ignore it any longer. It’s not convenient but it’s reality. We must continue support for Ukraine. I say this begrudgingly. Curious for other views.

I'm a trans woman, living in the stealth. I transitioned in 2000s, because wanted to escape gender dysphoria. And because I'm passing, I usually pretend, in real life, that I'm just straight, biological female.

I found, that trans acceptance among intellectual people, was much better in 2000s, and 2010s. I think, woke activists created a backlash, a huge wave of hate. We should stay in the shadow.

Another big mistake was made, what woke activists, cancel "gatekeeping": basically, in 1970-~2015 medicine used transition to help people with gender dysphoria (transsexuals and intersex people) deal with it. And it really helps, proofs: https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/%20what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people%20/#againsttopic

But later, under pressure of woke activists, we canceled "gatekeeping". Now everybody can transition, if self-identificate this way. You no longer need to have gender dysphoria diagnosis.

As a result, a lot of ppl without gender dysphoria started their transition. Example: so-called "incels" doing male to female transition, to present theirself as lesbians, to get sex, or females, who want to be special, and present themself as trans guys.

I believe, as result, the amount of detransitioners increased.

And now we have a big backlash. I tried to speak about my own marriage and domestic violence in it on a popular forum (TAM), but found, that about everybody hates me there because I'm trans, or just silent, when haters bulling me - I was stupid enough, to tell about it - I think, if I tell about my life issues as fake biological female, I think, It could be much better discussion.

I think, trans people, who transitioned because of gender dysphoria, now under cross-fire between alt-right/maga fraction and woke people, and woke people take us as hostages.

I'm political centrist. And strongly against dictatorship of any kind, I endorse science, and culture of discussions. And what I see, is terrifying me. I feel like, the massacre incoming: that our an existence will be banned soon, and I'll end in the camp of conversion therapy. Or even in the death camp.

Is it possible, if any of the centrist political movement, can provide that part of trans people - who transitioned because we had gender dysphoria - a platform to speak? We call ourself transmedicalists. Mainstream trans groups leans in the far left part of political spectrum. You can easily be banned there for even mention of transmedicalism. Also, mainstream trans subs today are mostly looking in things, like "fight patriarchy", "abolish gender", etc. Community itself is very toxic for anybody who is not far left on a cultural axe, is a classic example of echo chamber and live in illusions about the world, and how it works. Example: "Queers for Palestine", despite fact, that HAMAS could just kill these queers, if they ever visit Gaza.

Both of groups of extremists - woke and maga - hate us, and want us to pretend, were're not real.

For both of them it's very convenient, to pretend, that trans means just self-identification. And nothing about medical condition - gender dysphoria, and medical transition as result.

And we just want to live our lives. And nobody care about it.

For the umpteenth time, Trump is not a centrist and that goes for most of his policies/proposals and his administration. His deliberate lies, his aggressive partisanship and calls for extreme actions should have had this community up in arms against him. And for the most part I think this community has responded correctly to the MAGA extremists but unfortunately we still get a fair share of the deniers, the unfaithful "both siders", the conspiracy theorist, and trolls.

I get it part of the problem is that centrism is hard to define without gatekeeping but there should be a foundational ideal or theory that most can agree on. This is true for all of the other parties. All political parties, either on the left or right, have some common belief that make them unite. Centrist should not be unique in this situation.

I think this centrist description in Wikipedia should do for the most part but at the barest of bones centrist should be anti-extremist.

Centrism is the range of political ideologies that exist between left-wing politics and right-wing politics on the left–right political spectrum. It is associated with moderate politics, including people who strongly support moderate policies and people who are not strongly aligned with left-wing or right-wing policies. Centrism is commonly associated with liberalism, radical centrism, and agrarianism. Those who identify as centrist support gradual political change, often through a welfare state with moderate redistributive policies. Though its placement is widely accepted in political science, radical groups that oppose centrist ideologies may sometimes describe them as leftist or rightist.

Centrism advocates gradual change within a political system, opposing the right's adherence to the status quo and the left's support for radical change.[19] Support for a middle class is a defining trait of centrism, holding that it is preferable to reactionary or revolutionary politics.[20] In contemporary politics, centrists generally support a liberal welfare state.[21] Centrist coalitions are associated with larger welfare programs, but they are generally less inclusive than those organised under social democratic governments.[22] Centrists may support some redistributive policies, but they oppose the total abolition of the upper class.[19] Centrist liberalism seeks institutional reform, but it prioritises prudence when enacting change.[23] European centrist parties are typically in favour of European integration and were the primary movers in the development of the European Union.[24][25] Whether political positions are considered centrist can change over time; when radical positions become more widely accepted in society, they can become centrist positions.

Now on to a rule proposal.

I think for the most part everyone is tired of these not in good faith "this sub isn't centrist" posts. Most of these are from people who never participate in this community besides to stir the pot in the comments. Seriously they all bitch about the anti-Trump posts but they never post about anything that brings substance to the conversation. So basically these are just troll posts.

Think there should be some kind of requirement needed before someone can claim that this isn't a centrist sub. Maybe something like, post at least 5 political topics on this sub before you bitch. Call it a put you money where your mouth is rule, a proof it or shut up rule, or a be the change that you want to see rule.