Not really, because I think you’re splitting hairs rather than answering my question. I called it right of centre and you called it right wing and you’re very very cross that I didn’t use your exact phrase, but you aren’t explaining what your phrases mean not why it’s important that I use them nor why you disbelieve in political centre. If your point all along was that there is no centre, maybe you should have said so earlier, and maybe you can find it in your heart to explain calmly why you believe what you believe and what you mean by the words you use instead of shouting at me for not already understanding when you consistently fail to explain.
Trying to understand your perspective is exhausting because you never answer my questions, never explain your reasoning, but instead get furious with me for not using the terminology you didn’t explain and for not already prebelieving the conclusions I’ve been challenging you to explain the rationale for, for two days now.
I begin to suspect that your position is that any party that doesn’t advocate for the abolition of money is necessarily far right and that making distinctions between them is counterproductive*, but you literally never said that and I’m having to deduce your position from how relatively cross you are about things I said. It’s neither very effective communication of ideas, nor a very persuasive debating technique, as I believe very few people who don’t already agree with you would have persisted this long or given you so many opportunities to explain.
*I disagree, and I think Trump is far, far worse than other presidents I’ve seen in the USA
Not really, because I think you’re splitting hairs rather than answering my question. I called it right of centre and you called it right wing and you’re very very cross that I didn’t use your exact phrase, but you aren’t explaining what your phrases mean not why it’s important that I use them nor why you disbelieve in political centre. If your point all along was that there is no centre, maybe you should have said so earlier, and maybe you can find it in your heart to explain calmly why you believe what you believe and what you mean by the words you use instead of shouting at me for not already understanding when you consistently fail to explain.
Trying to understand your perspective is exhausting because you never answer my questions, never explain your reasoning, but instead get furious with me for not using the terminology you didn’t explain and for not already prebelieving the conclusions I’ve been challenging you to explain the rationale for, for two days now.
I begin to suspect that your position is that any party that doesn’t advocate for the abolition of money is necessarily far right and that making distinctions between them is counterproductive*, but you literally never said that and I’m having to deduce your position from how relatively cross you are about things I said. It’s neither very effective communication of ideas, nor a very persuasive debating technique, as I believe very few people who don’t already agree with you would have persisted this long or given you so many opportunities to explain.
*I disagree, and I think Trump is far, far worse than other presidents I’ve seen in the USA
Really? Your attempt to justify your belief in reactionary propaganda is “splitting hairs?”
WHAT (supposed) “centre?”
WHERE is this (alleged) “centre” between left and right that you speak of?
Show it to me.