Why should I vote Democrat?

[Buck Edwards]

23 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

Immature people voted for Biden and his wars because they hated Trump and his tweets. Have you seen grocery, gas, and home prices?

Yep that makes sense. There's been a moral conflict among Americans ever since. Trump is not a great candidate but prices were quite low and affordable during his time as a prez. Biden had really made it worse. Also Biden shies away from the border issues. His negligence will crumble the economy. Most people are resenting Biden causing the resurgence in support for Trump. This really reminds me of 1930s Germany. Chaos, wars, conflict, inflation, patriotism. 

[Nivsch]

Vote Nikki Haley. A republican but more developed than majority of the democrats.

[Buck Edwards]

5 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

Vote Nikki Haley. A republican but more developed than majority of the democrats.

She sounds good but is she really making waves in the poll? Don't wanna waste a vote on a non promising candidate. American politics doesn't care about underdogs. You can have excellent candidates like Tim Scott yet they don't figure big on the polls, then they are really backseat candidates - candidates who are good enough but won't make it. A vote for them is equivalent to a vote in the bin. So you have to choose between the top ones competing against each other or their second runner ups. You get what I mean. 

[BlueOak]

1 hour ago, Buck Edwards said:

She sounds good but is she really making waves in the poll? Don't wanna waste a vote on a non promising candidate. American politics doesn't care about underdogs. You can have excellent candidates like Tim Scott yet they don't figure big on the polls, then they are really backseat candidates - candidates who are good enough but won't make it. A vote for them is equivalent to a vote in the bin. So you have to choose between the top ones competing against each other or their second runner ups. You get what I mean. 

She's not running independently. She's in a primary, if she loses then you can pick again.

[BlueOak]

2 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

Immature people voted for Biden and his wars because they hated Trump and his tweets. Have you seen grocery, gas, and home prices?

I have never heard anyone on a left wing channel say I am not voting trump because of his 5am tweets. That's just something to laugh at or comic relief. 

[Twentyfirst]

30 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

I have never heard anyone on a left wing channel say I am not voting trump because of his 5am tweets. That's just something to laugh at or comic relief. 

People on the left are notorious for being outraged and offended at the tiniest things. A tweet is enough to ruin their week and send them into despair. Watchu talkin bout. Ever heard of a Karen?

[BlueOak]

11 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

People on the left are notorious for being outraged and offended at the tiniest things. A tweet is enough to ruin their week and send them into despair. Watchu talkin bout. Ever heard of a Karen?

People on the left, the actual left, not the center. Dislike fake outrage more than you, because unlike you, people keep telling them that this is what they are. 

People on the left value substantive issues, with depth and meaning. Things they can sink their teeth into. Rightwingers will generally not debate them anymore, because they dismantle their perspectives and force them to confront their values from completely opposing angles. Generally, right-wingers can only debate corporate liberal centrists, and then say see they don't care about actual issues, they just like being polite. (They don't care as much because the center is the reality, and they already have more of what they want for the most part)

Please demonstrate, any leftist, anytime, who primarily thinks like this. Give me one link that isn't a mainstream media news network or liberal centrist with only vague awareness of what we are talking about. And no Pakman doesn't count for the most part, as he's just a slight step away from the center.

This shouldn't be a big ask, because everyone slips up sometime over the years they are broadcasting. If it's an actual leftist (which I doubt). Then i'll be able to point to the 500 pieces they did of substance.

Edited December 5, 2023 by BlueOak

[Twentyfirst]

@BlueOak Who am I kidding. The entire country is full of softies nowadays smh 

[BlueOak]

20 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

@BlueOak Who am I kidding. The entire country is full of softies nowadays smh 

Yes. Contributing to a weird 1980's-like image over substance, or perhaps because of it. From dating and socialising, to business and culture. Where the computer or TV screen highlights one aspect of life at the expense of everything else. Which is always going to be fragile, 2D and easily broken. That one video you saw, or that one comment becomes everything about that person, all anyone talks about or remembers. This makes someone look like X, that's all I know about him/her through this limited lens we have. So then, especially professionally people making a living, defend the image that was created, identify with it, and focus on trying to maintain something they decided was useful to them.

At least it's helping people stop caring so much about what others think, by using these pseudo-identities projected online, like any imbalanced part of life. Its responsible for the fragility of people's self-identities, having no real thing of substance to be tethered to, and people searching for meaning elsewhere.

Edited December 5, 2023 by BlueOak

[Twentyfirst]

2 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Yes. Contributing to a weird 1980's-like image over substance, or perhaps because of it. From dating and socialising, to business and culture. Where the computer or TV screen highlights one aspect of life at the expense of everything else. Which is always going to be fragile, 2D and easily broken. That one video you saw, or that one comment becomes everything about that person, all anyone talks about or remembers. This makes someone look like X, that's all I know about him/her through this limited lens we have. So then, especially professionally people making a living, defend the image that was created, identify with it, and focus on trying to maintain something they decided was useful to them.

At least it's helping people stop caring so much about what others think, by using these pseudo-identities projected online, like any imbalanced part of life.

I think it carries on from online to real life. I have noticed more people with "hurt feelings". To summarize we have to hide the facts to protect their feelings

[BlueOak]

Just now, Twentyfirst said:

I think it carries on from online to real life. I have noticed more people with "hurt feelings". To summarize we have to hide the facts to protect their feelings

Yes I added that just as you were replying and thought of it.

The projected identities people assume carry over into real life, but they are not built on anything firm, so people are fragile. 

[Twentyfirst]

2 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Yes I added that just as you were replying and thought of it.

The projected identities people assume carry over into real life, but they are not built on anything firm, so people are fragile. 

The identities aren't firm because their feelings aren't firm. The feelings change and go up and down for no reason and the underlying identity underneath feelings is awareness which people unfortunately don't identify with 

[BlueOak]

Just now, Twentyfirst said:

The identities aren't firm because their feelings aren't firm. The feelings change and go up and down for no reason and the underlying identity underneath feelings is awareness which people unfortunately don't identify with 

Yes but its cyclic. You can work on one or the other, chicken and the egg. Without a stable identity (or lack of needing one), their feelings will rise and fall like the wind. Without having some control over your emotions forming a stable identity is difficult. I like the phrase domesticating your emotions, you have them but they are to your benefit not your detriment. 

If we want to be optimistic, it could be that some of these people will develop to the point they don't need identities anymore or as much, and can just use them when it benefits that person, and this is just a growing pains phase.

[Danioover9000]

@sholomar

5 hours ago, sholomar said:

I have hangups with both political parties. Sometimes it's hard to choose, but leftists in their current state remind me more of a religious cult, which is one reason I tend to shy away from them.  They have these socialist utopian ideals that human beings as a species are not going to be ready for any time soon. You go too soft in crime, and crime goes way up. You give people too many handouts, they just want more of them. This whole coddling of society just doesn't, and won't ever work.  That's not how evolution designed us to operate.

That, and I tend to like to vote for the underdog, just to keep a sense of gridlock in place. Human nature dictates you won't want any herd of people to have too much power. The more checks and balances to keep power distributed, the better. That said, the super rich will always pull society's strings whether you are in a capitalist society, communist, or whatever. Those at the top like power, they like control. In the end, vote for  what you think will be best for the long term growth of the nation, world, and species.

I tend to think that's progressives, but they have a few pet issues they fail spectacularly at, so much so it's hard to support them. In the end I default to supporting "democracy" or rule by voting, over autocracy, rule by dictators. Beyond that, specific issues aren't as important.  You will never please everybody.

I am NOT worried about Trump being a dictator or making himself president for life. As a Trump voter I myself would oppose that and do whatever I could to stop it. The system of checks and balances is important and there for a reason.  People have swallowed the mainstream media narratives, which is why they believe this stuff.  All media, including social media content creators on all "sides" , are sensationalist peddlers looking to extract you of your attention, clicks, and dollars and try to assimilate you into their frame, their narratives, their mindset, their echo chamber. Remember that and increase your peace of mind, and free your mind.

   Sure, I agree here on the left, especially that the internet and online cultures have made this online variation of the left, the hyper socialist/progressive online spaces shout Fascist at you for merely simple disagreements that could have resolved with dialogue or even some argument, but no! As soon as you disagree with me, and you are out debating me, I just call you Fascist for being a traditionalist/conservative trying to live your life and work a bit hard for you and your family, because obviously a hard working conservative person is a Nazi. This is the legacy that Vaush, Hasan, h2h2 Ethan, maybe Destiny and many other online big names out there will leave, if you strongly disagree just call'em Fascist. This is why the internet and online cultures have negative effects across the developmental factors like values, cognitive and moral development, personality and psychology, self to mass consciousness, states of being/becoming, Integral Theory's lines of development in life and societal domains, ideological beliefs groomed and indoctrinated via culture, family upbringing, and information ecology monopolized by big tech companies via news, radio, TV, video, social media platforms, from mainstream to alternative, to manufacture consent in the masses for consumerism towards the ideologies of capitalism and neoliberalism.

   Despite the design of each social media site and online spaces, from Tik Tok's addictive and attention grabbing and attention stealing format, to the clips and shorts which incentivizes shorter attention spans, to dating apps that can beautify profile pics which increases narcissism and self entitlement, to the anonymity and the ease of making various user names and IDs that opinions are not as articulated carefully, and the negative ramifications are not there as opposed to real world ramifications of hating, trolling and pranking face to face, and many other factors in the internet that have made Gen x and more Gen Z much weaker in mind, body and soul. 

[Danioover9000]

@BlueOak

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

People on the left, the actual left, not the center. Dislike fake outrage more than you, because unlike you, people keep telling them that this is what they are. 

People on the left value substantive issues, with depth and meaning. Things they can sink their teeth into. Rightwingers will generally not debate them anymore, because they dismantle their perspectives and force them to confront their values from completely opposing angles. Generally, right-wingers can only debate corporate liberal centrists, and then say see they don't care about actual issues, they just like being polite. (They don't care as much because the center is the reality, and they already have more of what they want for the most part)

Please demonstrate, any leftist, anytime, who primarily thinks like this. Give me one link that isn't a mainstream media news network or liberal centrist with only vague awareness of what we are talking about. And no Pakman doesn't count for the most part, as he's just a slight step away from the center.

This shouldn't be a big ask, because everyone slips up sometime over the years they are broadcasting. If it's an actual leftist (which I doubt). Then i'll be able to point to the 500 pieces they did of substance.

   Easy: Hasan, XQC, Ethen from H3H3, Vaush, Stardust, and many other social media personalities. Some of them even willing to smear actual real life conservatives or moderates as Fascists if they don't agree with their ideology, or can't win an argument so they go into smear campaign mode. 

[Buck Edwards]

The left relies mainly on propaganda babble. 

[BlueOak]

1 hour ago, Danioover9000 said:

@BlueOak

   Easy: Hasan, XQC, Ethen from H3H3, Vaush, Stardust, and many other social media personalities. Some of them even willing to smear actual real life conservatives or moderates as Fascists if they don't agree with their ideology, or can't win an argument so they go into smear campaign mode. 

Someone labeling someone else was not what was being discussed. People do that all the time. They denigrate their political opponents to try to diminish or smear their image. What was being discussed was trump tweets, and how people get outraged about them. Civility over substance is primarily a trait of the center trying to maintain decorum, as opposed to a left political position. 

I used to be someone who resisted the term fascist being used, as I didn't think it appropriate. These days it almost is. Certainly, republicans act as an authoritarian party leaning fascist and dems are on the way too.

Fascist Traits in American Republicans:

Spectacle politics (Aestheticization of politics) - Hell yes.
Irrationalism, Anti Intellectualism , and Conspiracy theory - Hell Yes.
Cult of personalty - Hell Yes.
Social Darwinism - Yes
Anti-Materialism - Yes
Direct Action - Yes Jan 6th
Anti-pacifism - Hawkishness, Hell Yes
Heroic capitalism - Idealisation, Hell yes.
Indoctrination - Yes, through limiting texts, books in education. Can argue it possibly either way for both parties.
Rascism - Yes, not willing to debate it tonight, I'll just assume you say no.
Nationalism - Yes
Proletarian nation, the inspiration of radical nationalist groups - Jan 6th. Yes.
National syndicalism - Yes this is exactly what is being proposed in Trump's next term. For clarity the Italian model.
Populism - Yes
Machismo - Yes but not in either leader presently, they are too old, stuck in the past, and generally not strong leadership material.
New Man Idealisation - Hell yes.

Third Position - Populism is pushing it there, meaning left and right nationalists working together, can't call it present yet though, just starting

Then let's look at just how much America has moved closer to fascism in both parties, for fairness's sake, I touched on it above.

Perpetual war - Hell yes for both
Doing away with the primary vote, debates etc - Yes for both.
Corporatism - Yes for both
Heavy Propaganda - Yes for both
Chauvinism as it relates to a preferred group or religion, not gender specific - Yes, sadly yes for both now. 
Conspiracy Theory - Leaked into the dems messaging for a while, but seems to have been kicked out again, relying on bureaucracy and the rule of law once more.
Class collaboration to maintain the hierarchical power structure - Yes to both, with some stipulations.

One-party state - We could argue America is there already but this all depends on the image, and your definition. Its more subtle than a single yes/no. Corporations fund and put forward candidates that they want you to pick from. There are certainly, this time around, big ideological differences but it's not always the case or usually. Certainly not in the UK now anyway, the difference is almost non-existent here. (I'm not just bashing Americans far from it).

Social order - This is an odd one in that it's exclusive to the dems at the moment, on the face of it. Though both parties are still owned by corporate donors, so it's only a face-value disagreement for the cameras.

Then a few are against the older definition of fascism.

Statolatry or Idealisation of the state - I could argue Republicans tried it but they are so hell-bent on breaking what is there, not at present.
Imperialism (Yes but on the decline)
Militarism (Somewhat yes for both but on the decline)
Heavy market regulation (Hell no)

Source: Themes of fascism. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Covers almost all of it, America is close to being a fascist state and one more push to the right will get you there.

Edited December 5, 2023 by BlueOak

[Buck Edwards]

2 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Someone labeling someone else was not what was being discussed. People do that all the time. They denigrate their political opponents to try to diminish or smear their image. What was being discussed was trump tweets, and how people get outraged about them. Civility over substance is primarily a trait of the center trying to maintain decorum, as opposed to a left political position. 

I used to be someone who resisted the term fascist being used, as I didn't think it appropriate. These days it almost is. Certainly, republicans act as an authoritarian party leaning fascist and dems are on the way too.

Fascist Traits in American Republicans:

Spectacle politics (Aestheticization of politics) - Hell yes.
Irrationalism, Anti Intellectualism , and Conspiracy theory - Hell Yes.
Cult of personalty - Hell Yes.
Social Darwinism - Yes
Anti-Materialism - Yes
Direct Action - Yes Jan 6th
Anti-pacifism - Hawkishness, Hell Yes
Heroic capitalism - Idealisation, Hell yes.
Indoctrination - Yes, through limiting texts, books in education. Can argue it possibly either way for both parties.
Rascism - Yes, not willing to debate it tonight, I'll just assume you say no.
Nationalism - Yes
Proletarian nation, the inspiration of radical nationalist groups - Jan 6th. Yes.
National syndicalism - Yes this is exactly what is being proposed in Trump's next term.
Populism - Yes
Machismo - Yes but not in either leader presently, they are too old, stuck in the past, and generally not strong leadership material.
New Man Idealisation - Hell yes.

Third Position - Populism is pushing it there, meaning left and right nationalists working together, can't call it present yet though, just starting

Then let's look at just how much America has moved closer to fascism in both parties, for fairness's sake, I touched on it above.

Perpetual war - Hell yes for both
Doing away with the primary vote, debates etc - Yes for both.
Corporatism - Yes for both
Heavy Propaganda - Yes for both
Chauvinism as it relates to a preferred group or religion, not gender specific - Yes, sadly yes for both now. 
Conspiracy Theory - Leaked into the dems messaging for a while, but seems to have been kicked out again, relying on bureaucracy and the rule of law once more.
Class collaboration to maintain the hierarchical power structure - Yes to both, with some stipulations.

One-party state - We could argue America is there already but this all depends on the image, and your definition. Its more subtle than a single yes/no. Corporations fund and put forward candidates that they want you to pick from. There are certainly, this time around, big ideological differences but it's not always the case or usually. Certainly not in the UK now anyway, the difference is almost non-existent here. (I'm not just bashing Americans far from it).

Social order - This is an odd one in that it's exclusive to the dems at the moment, on the face of it. Though both parties are still owned by corporate donors, so it's only a face-value disagreement for the cameras.

Then a few are against the older definition of fascism.

Statolatry or Idealisation of the state - I could argue Republicans tried it but they are so hell-bent on breaking what is there, not at present.
Imperialism (Yes but on the decline)
Militarism (Somewhat yes for both but on the decline)
Heavy market regulation (Hell no)

Source: Themes of fascism. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Covers almost all of it, America is close to being a fascist state and one more push to the right will get you there.

Nice 

[Danioover9000]

@BlueOak

4 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Someone labeling someone else was not what was being discussed. People do that all the time. They denigrate their political opponents to try to diminish or smear their image. What was being discussed was trump tweets, and how people get outraged about them. Civility over substance is primarily a trait of the center trying to maintain decorum, as opposed to a left political position. 

I used to be someone who resisted the term fascist being used, as I didn't think it appropriate. These days it almost is. Certainly, republicans act as an authoritarian party leaning fascist and dems are on the way too.

Fascist Traits in American Republicans:

Spectacle politics (Aestheticization of politics) - Hell yes.
Irrationalism, Anti Intellectualism , and Conspiracy theory - Hell Yes.
Cult of personalty - Hell Yes.
Social Darwinism - Yes
Anti-Materialism - Yes
Direct Action - Yes Jan 6th
Anti-pacifism - Hawkishness, Hell Yes
Heroic capitalism - Idealisation, Hell yes.
Indoctrination - Yes, through limiting texts, books in education. Can argue it possibly either way for both parties.
Rascism - Yes, not willing to debate it tonight, I'll just assume you say no.
Nationalism - Yes
Proletarian nation, the inspiration of radical nationalist groups - Jan 6th. Yes.
National syndicalism - Yes this is exactly what is being proposed in Trump's next term. For clarity the Italian model.
Populism - Yes
Machismo - Yes but not in either leader presently, they are too old, stuck in the past, and generally not strong leadership material.
New Man Idealisation - Hell yes.

Third Position - Populism is pushing it there, meaning left and right nationalists working together, can't call it present yet though, just starting

Then let's look at just how much America has moved closer to fascism in both parties, for fairness's sake, I touched on it above.

Perpetual war - Hell yes for both
Doing away with the primary vote, debates etc - Yes for both.
Corporatism - Yes for both
Heavy Propaganda - Yes for both
Chauvinism as it relates to a preferred group or religion, not gender specific - Yes, sadly yes for both now. 
Conspiracy Theory - Leaked into the dems messaging for a while, but seems to have been kicked out again, relying on bureaucracy and the rule of law once more.
Class collaboration to maintain the hierarchical power structure - Yes to both, with some stipulations.

One-party state - We could argue America is there already but this all depends on the image, and your definition. Its more subtle than a single yes/no. Corporations fund and put forward candidates that they want you to pick from. There are certainly, this time around, big ideological differences but it's not always the case or usually. Certainly not in the UK now anyway, the difference is almost non-existent here. (I'm not just bashing Americans far from it).

Social order - This is an odd one in that it's exclusive to the dems at the moment, on the face of it. Though both parties are still owned by corporate donors, so it's only a face-value disagreement for the cameras.

Then a few are against the older definition of fascism.

Statolatry or Idealisation of the state - I could argue Republicans tried it but they are so hell-bent on breaking what is there, not at present.
Imperialism (Yes but on the decline)
Militarism (Somewhat yes for both but on the decline)
Heavy market regulation (Hell no)

Source: Themes of fascism. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Covers almost all of it, America is close to being a fascist state and one more push to the right will get you there.

   Great post, glad I baited a longer reply out of you. Will check out the wiki and research this.

[Devin]

If you enjoy liberty and prosperity you would obviously want to vote for Democrats. If you instead would prefer an Evangelical authoritarian nation centered on envy, deceit, consumerism, and exploitation of the working class and environment then you would obviously want to vote Republican though.

Edited December 13, 2023 by Devin