Democrats and Republicans

By Samuel Muiruri | Dec. 18, 2018 | Politics

The difference of opinion between liberals and the conservatives from a democrat to a republican seems to push some ideologies that suggests that each side has a core belief and agenda that separates the two.

I used to be of the idea the republicans were generally bible hardcore fans and also anti-abortion even anti-gay basically an old-time Christian mind set but there’s a flaw in this logic.

Take one news channel like CNN that will note another like FoxNews is pro republican and will never say anything wrong with the Republican side but “they” are objective and will deliver the unbiased truth.

That might be their true intentions but I’d disagree for a good reason, the media will tell you mainly what you want to hear because like any other business, it’s at its core a business and will always think about the numbers: how many people we have that are loyal or new listeners and will work on trying to keep them on.

When you’ve gone down this path you can already get statistics on them like age, sex and likely also their political affiliation and since part of the model of this business is advertising you need to keep the listeners loyal to your brand, you need them to trust you and there comes the inherent outcome where based on your ideologies you will tend to look and follow things that agree to this. It’s an unconscious bias and likely explains why inherently a conservative would prefer FoxNews and a liberal CNN.

To add some back story, I’m not American, I’m Kenyan and we have some comparison to this, unlike US where this is broken down mainly on ideologies here it more tribal. Politician A will team up with a running mate B and the two with their mainly race based supporters make a huge voting block, the opposition as politician C will team up with a running mate D and also their mainly same race supporters make a sizable challenge for any political seat.

Where as in US the two parties likely differ in policies and implementation here the two voting blocks mainly agree on everything except the other block isn’t doing a good job. The key factor here is they mainly rally supporters against corruption against and the other side or to cry foul play when it’s against their side or key supporters. Some change is brewing though and it seems the norm is changing, my guess is likely we might take on the same political stance as US as the race card no longer flies as they not only get called out more by the media and with laws that convict politicians rallying to segregate another tribe.

So in contrast here you might hear a supporter of politician A say he’d prefer to watch news from this channel because it’s objective.

If I was a US citizen I would likely be a democrat because it’s mainly the pro-black community side, majority of blacks vote democrat even if those voted end up doing nothing for the community. That’s the party that Obama got his presidency with and for the moment I’ll ignore what some in the black community feel was a failure of him not doing anything to help them out and the injustice they receive.

Liberals/Democrats are the pro-rights group, presumably they always side with the rights of the minority but history is interesting the KKK had members on both sides, and if I understood this right they even tried to overthrow the Republican government. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and he was against slavery and as much as slavery was and still is evil, back then they weren’t the exception it was the norm, even well of black families had black slaves and some of these black slave owners were considered to be just as cruel or even more than the white slave owners. You should also note slavery was likely also applicable to also white slaves.

I can get how as a Black American reading on the countries history you’d find the slavery of blacks as a sour topic, but this is still also not the exception, Africa where they came from and in relation the rest of the world was a very unjust place. We had tribes and none of us trusted each others, even likely sub-tribe conflict was very common, for example the native Americans; the Indians were being invaded at first by a foreign power and they fought against them but at the same time the tribes were also in conflict with each other primarily why the first settlers got an upper hand on them. One thing to note is violence begets violence; whether the newcomers had violated sacred land or killed on of your own going into a town and killing all the inhabitants is going to illicit and equal or greater reaction. Whether the end game was intended to make them believe you were bad and scare them away, the opposite seemed to happen as they fortified and prepared for war, and war came and as history has it the victors get to write the story, the first version, and the coming generation judges them.

The US has gone a long way from when blacks and women had no rights, women even it seems got their rights after the black community and it has been a steady incremental revising of the laws and it’s interpretation to bring about equality.

Take for example South Africa, the apartheid where blacks and whites were treated differently took incremental changes and still remnants of this remains as the black community there still bears a huge grudge against the white community.

If victims of atrocities always play a victim card, even if it’s not recent history it’s not going to make bridging the gap easy or possible. If you take the current Germany to the Hitler Germany there’s a huge difference, today being pro-nazi is a criminal act.

That’s one thing that’s wrong with movements like Black Lives Matter which insinuates white oppression and police brutality; likely if a white guy beats a black kid in public assuming only white people are around what do you expect would happen? As context for racial prejudice. Even where there’s a clear victim one person seems to be bullying the other people tend to intervene, it usually just takes one person to speak up for the group conscious to take over.

This brings me to my next point where presented with information news that seems to be true you use less conscious effort to come to a conclusion. For example when watching a movie where the plot unfolds organically you take less mental effort to keep you’re concentration, compared to a documentary explaining concepts still sequentially, depending on how familiar you are with it will lead to a higher mental activity as you internalize the content.

With this in context the same way you would find ingesting content from a news network as organic because you likely agree with most of what they say, except for the exception of atrocities here and there, their political stance will be framed from a stand point you can agree with. If you performed an experiment where say you made fake news broadcast with the logo any layout of the same news network but a different new presenter who is however of the other political stance, I beat you would easily see a spike in a supporter using more cognitive effort to process the information because it doesn’t agree with their prior beliefs.

Democrats sell rights; the rights for LGBT community, where we can agree on the lesbians and gay rights this from a country where there’s no such thing as gay marriage or gay pride marches or even outspoken gay’s who are not activists because being vocal is not good for your career, no-homo i.e. that’s not my sexual orientation.

But transgender; a man who feels like a woman trapped in a woman’s body and vice-versa is different from a guy who likes the same sex, same for lesbians and the bisexual who like both sides, the transgender isn’t a cross dresser still, in their own category and who eventually, some of them end up with a sex change surgery, they have the highest suicide rate equal to the jews under the Nazi’s; highest of any other group. This rate still doesn’t drop after the sex change surgery; this would fall under some form of chronic depression which is mainly the cause of suicide. If you start having an interest in stats for example that suicide rates are higher in developed countries than developing countries with far more social and economic problems it suggests that having some form of basic Human Rights only makes it more evident that life needs more meaning.

Or the fact in some countries, Kenya included suicide is a criminal act is saying I tried to off myself, I didn’t succeed and now I’m going to jail or suffer some other form of legal repercussion, if even there was evidence that citizens are nothing more that cattle feeding the nation with taxes this would be it.

The point though here is both sides agree on that you should not have your rights infringed on in any way but the left seems to offer more of a victim stance than the right which cite stats. There is logic behind this; the left needs the minority votes to aggregate to beat the right while the right appealing mainly to the white majority will want to assure that the status quo isn’t going to be radicalized to appease the minority, that’s democracy in a nutshell.

The main problem I’ve seen with the left and it’s something I fell for and believed in was they were victimized like black incarsaration was a ploy to target a minority; but if you consider that this minority 13% accounts for over over 40% of police kills not to mention black on black gun violence, the cribs and blood are gangs and like any other prior gangs like the mafia they will always collide with the police.

They suffer from the victim mentality and worse is the empowerment of women is coming in conflict with equal empowering men, the sequence of marches by the left has now “matured” with the women movement, the #MeToo crowd that implies men are tyranical and suggest men should for starters start acting more feminine to give women a break. The same group that implies there’s no difference between a man and a woman believe they’re not talking of biologically but the mental state and capability, glancing over this and giving it a pass but note this: if you gave a man a woman’s pheromones they’d have a behavioural change so why would you assume there’s no inherent change? The fact that women feel feminine from an early age is not a consequence of upbringing but natural design.

With a large number of supporters and a pack dog mentality they force their ideas onto most mild tempered organizations that don’t want to be called sexist in nature. If ever there was an excuse I’ve heard to be pro-right it’s that their motto is: own you’re shit, take responsibility. This is important if only to point out that being agreeable or political correctness should not be the goal of a good discussion: when two opposing ideas meet the two people are likely to disagree and the argument will get heated but that should not mean it should lead to violence but a common ground can be reached. But when you take a victim stance to anything that opposes your normal ideas you’re not leaving a lot of room for development.

The studies suggest that the kids are likely to grow up to become juvenile delinquent if male or teen mothers if female, this is the result of the statistics, however the mainly left-winged crowd took it as a blow to their mindset of women power or them as failures being raised by a single mother or a single mother, the thing though with the statistics if you here 3/4 marriages end up in divorces citing this is nonsense and everyone you know who is married, is happily married doesn’t falsify the stats and if anything suggests there’s a high likelihood then further down the line is when disaster is likely to strike, but there’s the 1/4 who don’t break up but it’s almost now like a lottery ticket, you might be the winner but you should also be prepared to be a loser.

This isn’t the exception, the left are the guys who champion alternative medicine and are against vacination as it might cause autism among other unscientific claims, the right would be against global warming but to be understood the “overwhelming” evidence isn’t overwhelming enough for them and at the same time the ice age is not a one-time thing it’s a seasonal change

Theory or not this is just to state that the opposite could happen, the idea that we are about to make Irreversible change to the climate is a bit overstated

We can reverse climate change it’s just not painful enough today to invest heavily enough to do this.

Take another stance of the liberal left that the borders should be opened up essentially suggesting a free way pass from the southern border for illegal immigrants, they simply refuse to accept that there’s an inherent risk, proven that some of these people do pose a risk for the citizens when they’re intend to act in crime to make a quick buck. That might be a main reason I’d say many people who serve wouldn’t agree with the new liberals who think a border is a bad thing. For one even they would state they don’t imply that everyone is inherently likely to be evil or wants to take advantage of the social-economic advantages in the country but the same way where they’re deployed to help bring stability they are likely to engage with the locals and they would find them to be pleasant because they give them a breath of relief from existing tyrants and they also remain vigilant because they know there’s a few who are the tyrants who rule with an iron fist.

There’s a quote in the movie American Sniper: there’s three kinds of people in this world, the wolf, the sheep and the sheep dog. The wolf seeks to take advantage of the sheep be it a serial killer or a psychopath who knows how to manipulate people emotions to his advantage and the sheep who are people who need the crowd’s approval, they move like a herd and therefore are easy to manipulate because moving a herd is simpler than hearding an individual; the individuals simply feel assured as they move as a herd than being hearded as an individual. Then there’s the sheep dog; one who works for the greater good of the herd by making sure they’re not being hearded by a wolf.

This is why liberals have failed men, they’ve convinced them being masculine is something to be curtailed and when they have a problem with Trump mainly on the basis he’s a clear example of masculine but when justin trudeau says: it’s not mankind it’s peoplekind he’s being progressive, we have a problem. These are not the kind of leaders who can deal effectively with radicals in the muslim countries infact they’re more likely to lobby for open borders for them if it would get them more supporters.